University of Surrey: For The Service Sector

UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF SURREY
OF MANAGEMENT
STUDIES
FOR THE SERVICE SECTOR
LINIVURS1 IY 01
SURREY
THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF BRAND EQUITY

IN THE HOSPITALITY
INDUSTRY
BY
JANG-HYEON NAM
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED
IN FULFILMENT
OF
THE REQUIR-EMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
2008
U Jang-Hyeon Narn 2008
UNIVERSITY
OF SURREY
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
STUDIES
FOR THE SERVICE SECTOR
UNIVERSITY
01-
SURREY

IN THE HOSPITALITY
INDUSTRY
BY
JANG-HYEON
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED
NAN!
IN FULFILMENT
OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
2008
OcJang-HyeonNam 2008
DECLARATION
I herebydeclarethat this thesishasbeencomposedby myself and hasnot beenpresented

or
acceptedin any previousapplicationfor a degree.The research,of which this is a record,has
beencompletedby myself unlessotherwisestatedand, where the work is mine, it reflects
personalviewsandvalues.All quotationshavebeendistinguishedby quotationmarksandall
by meansof references,includingthosefrom
sourcesof informationhavebeenacknowledged
the Internet.
JanghyconNam
Deccmber,2008
ABSTRACT
Emphasison building and managingbrandequity,as a primarydriver of a hospitalityfirm's

success,is of increasinginterest.Building a brandwith strongequity providesa numberof
potentialbenefitsto a firm: greaterbrandloyalty, largerprorit margins,cffectivc marketing
Although the issueof brand
communicationfocus, and opportunitiesfor brand-cxtcnsions.
equityhasemergedas oneof the mostimportantaspectsof branding,little empiricalevidence
existsas to how to createbrandequity and the natureof its antecedents
and consequences,
especiallyin the hospitalityindustry.Therefore,the thrustof this researchis to developandtest
a researchmodel of the antecedents
and consequences
of brand equity in the hospitality
industry- in particular,for the hotel and restaurantsectors.The importantvariablesof the
researchmodel include: personalvalues as the independentvariable, brand equity as the
mediatingvariable,andbrandloyalty asthe dependent
variable.In addition,valuefor moneyis
proposedto moderatethe relationshipbetweenbrandequityandbrandloyalty.
Tile specific objectivesof this researcharc: 1) to identify the underlying dimensionsof
personalvaluesandbrandequity,2) to investigatethe mediatingcffcctsof brandcquityon the
relationshipbetweenpersonalvaluesandbrandloyalty,and3) to examinewhetheror not value
for moneymoderates
the relationshipbetweenbrandequityandbrandloyalty.To achievethese
objectives,this researchuses several analytical techniques,which range from simple
descriptiveanalysis,T-tcst, ANOVA test and correlation analysis to the more complex
(n=378),
techniquesof factoranalysis,reliability analysisandregressionanalysis.Consumers
familiarwith restaurantor hotelbrandsin the UK, providedthe data.
The researchresulted in several significant findings. First, five dimensions of personalvalues
("compctcncc values," "conformity values," "compassionvalues," "scif-oricntcd values," and
"hedonism values") and five dimensionsof brand equity ("physical quality," "staff behaviour,"
"brand identification," "lifestyle, " and "self-concept") were found to be valid and reliable.
Second,a complex set of positive relationshipsappearedbetweenthe confin-ncddimensionsof
personalvalues and confirmed dimensionsof brand equity. While all five dimensionsof brand
dimensions
brand
loyalty,
had
the
of
on
none
a
positive
cffcct
of personalvalues had a
equity
ii
brand
brand
loyalty.
Testing
the
equityon the relationship
of
mediating
effect
positiveeffecton
bctwccnpersonalvaluesand brandloyalty was not possiblebecausethe conditionsto prove
mediationof brandequity do not exist. Finally, amongthe five dimensionsof brandequity,
value for money had a significant moderatingcffect only on the relationshipbetweenthe
"brandidentification"dimensionof brandequityandbrandloyalty.
This researchmakes several theoretical contributions to the literature and offers important
implications for hospitality managers.The key contribution of this researchis that it provides a
comprehensiveresearchmodel of the antecedentsand consequencesof brand equity in the
hospitality industry. Furthermore,the results of this researcharc useful for identifying the role
for
brand
brand
in
loyalty
the
strategies
strengthening customer
of
equity
and
estimating
loyalty for hospitality brands. Howcvcr, this researchis only the first step in developing a
researchmodel of antecedentsand consequencesof brand cquity, and future researchshould
build upon this researchmodel and subject it to further, rigorous examination.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration
...................................................................................................
Abstract
....................................................................................................
List of Tables
...................................................................................................
List of Figures
..............................................................................................
Acknowledgments
......................................................................................
Pagc
i
H
ix
Xii
Xiv
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1Backgroundof the Research

.........................................................................
1.2Objectivesof the Research
............................................................................
1.3Structureof theThesis
................................................................................
CIIAPTE112
2
3
3
An Overvicwof the Hospitality Industry in the UK
2.1 Introduction
.............................................................................................
2.2 The Hospitality Industry
................................................................................
2.2.1 Servicesand Goods
............................................................................
7
8
8
2.2.1.1Charactcristics
9
of Scrviccs........................................................
2.2.2GrowthandSignificanccof the HospitalityIndustry
11
...........................
2.2.3HospitalityIndustryin the UK
15
....... o-o-o-o-o..... o... o..oo...o....
Industry
2.2.3olUK Restaurant
15
o....... oo.
... ...... o.oo.0o.o..o.
oo..o.oo.o...oooo.
2 2 3 2 UK Ilotcl Industry. ...
19
.......... o...oo..o.................
o...........
o. .
2.2.4FutureGrowth
24
oo.... 0- ........ --o-ooo. o..
...... o.o..o.... o
2.3 Summary
26
.................................................................................................
CIIAPTE113
3.1 Introduction
The Concept of Brand Equity

..............................................................................................
3.2 Whatis Brand?

........................................................................................
3.2.1 Productversus Brand
3.2.2 Dcrinitions of Brand
........................................................................
............................................................................
3.2.3Functionsof Brand
............................................................................
3.3 Differcnt Pcrspcctivcsof Brand Equity

3.4 Componcritsof Brand Equity
.............................................................
.........................................................................
3.4.1 ScIf-Conccpt
....................................................................................
3.4.1.1 Dimcnsions of ScIr-Conccpt
......................................................
iv
28
29
29
30
33
35
39
40
40
3.4.1.2 Theory of Sclf-Conccpt Congruence

............................................
3.4.1.3 Measurementsof Self-ConccptCongruence
...................................
3.4.2BrandIdentification
............................................................................
3.4.2.1SocialIdentificationTheory
......................................................
3.4.2.2SocialIdentificationProcesses
....................................................
3.4.2.3Consequences
of SocialIdentification..........................................
3.4.3Lifestyle
..........................................................................................
3.4.3.1BrandasReflectionof Lifestyle
.................................................
3.4.4PerceivedQuality
...............................................................................
3.4.4.1PerceivedQualityin the Contextof Service
.....................................
3.4.4.1.1Conccptualization
of ScrviccQuality .............................
3.4.5 Brand Equity Rcscarchin flic Hospitality Industry

3.5 Summary
.......................................
45
46
47
48
50
51
51
53
53
55
63
64
.................................................................................................
CIIAPTER4
41
The Antecedents and Consequencesof Brand Equity
4.1 Introduction
............................................................................................
4.2 Antecedentsof Brand Equity
.........................................................................
4.2.1 PersonalValucs
................................................................................
4.2.1.1 Dcrinitions of PersonalValucs
...................................................
4.2.1.2Applications of PersonalValucsto Consumcrl3chaviour
.....................
4.2.1.2.1Mcans-EndChainModcl
4.2.1.2.1.1Laddcring
68
68
68
70
...........................................
70
............................................
72
4.2.1.3 Mcasurcmcntsof PcrsonalValucs
...............................................
4.2.1.3.1 RokcachValue Survey (RVS)
......................................
4.2.1.3.2 List of Values(LOV)
................................................
4.2.1.3.3 Value and Lifestyle (VALS)
........................................
4.3 Consequences
of Brand Equity .......................................................................
4.3.1 Brand Loyalty
.................................................................................
4.3.1.1 What is Brand Loyalty?
...........................................................
4.3.1.1.1Dcrinitionsof BrandLoyalty
......................................
4.3.1.1.1.1BchaviouralApproach to Brand Loyalty

4.3.1.1.1.2Attitudinal Approach to Brand Loyalty
4.3.1.1.1.3CompositeApproach to Brand Loyalty
.........
73
73
75
76
78
78
79
79
81
83
...........
4.3.1.1.2 Importancc of Brand Loyalty

.......................................
4.3.1.1.3 Typology of Brand Loyalty
........................................
4.3.1.2 Brand Loyalty Mcasurcments

....................................................
4.3.1.2.1 Behavioural Brand LoYalty Mcasurcmcnts
.......................
V
67
85
86
87
92
93
4.3.1.2.2Attitudinal Brand Loyalty Measurements

.........................
4.3.1.2.3 CompositeBrand Loyalty Measurements
.........................
4.3.1.3 Critique of Brand Loyalty Measurements
.......................................
4.3.1.4 Brand Loyalty in the Hospitality Industry
.........................................
4.3.1.4.1 Brand Loyalty Researchin the Hospitality Industry
............
4.3.1.4.2Measurementsof Brand Loyalty in the Hospitality
............
Industry
4.4 CustomerSatisfaction
................................................................................
4.4.1 Dcrinitions of CustomerSatisfaction
.......................................................
4.4.2 Different Typesof SatisfactionEvaluations
...............................................
4.4.2.1 Transaction-Spcci ri c Satisfaction
................................................
4.4.2.2 Overall Satisfaction
.................................................................
4.4.2.3 Expcctancy-DisconfirmationParadigm
.........................................
4.5 Value for Money
.......................................................................................
4.5.1 Definitions of Value for Money
.............................................................
4.5.2 Measurementsof Value for Money
.........................................................
4.5.2.1 Global Measurement
...............................................................
4.5.2.2 Dimcnsion-BascdMeasurement
..................................................
4.6 Summary
................................................................................................
94
96
96
99
100
102
105
106
108
108
109
110
112
112
114
114
115
118
CHAPTER 5 The ResearchModel

5.1 Introduction
.............................................................................................
5.2 RcscarchModcl
..........................................................................................
5.2.1 ProposcdRcscarchModcl
....................................................................
5.2.2 Qualitativc Study: In-depth Intcrvicws
.....................................................
5.2.3 Rcviscd RcscarchModcl
.....................................................................
5.3 Dcvclopmcnt of the RcscarchPropositions
.........................................................
5.4 Summary
................................................................................................
120
120
121
122
124
131
135
CHAPTER 6 Methodology
6.1 Introduction
............................................................................................
6.2 Research
Philosophy
...........................................
......................................
6.3 SamplingDesign
.................. .................. . .. ................................................
6.3.1SamplingMethod
............. ... .... ... ........... ............................................
6.3.2DataCollectionMethod
............................. ...........................................
6.4 Questionnaire
Design
........................... .......... ..............................................
6 4 1 Measurement
Variables
of
. .
.....................................................................
vi
137
137
140
143
148
149
151
6.4.2Questionnaire
Layout
..........................................................................
6.4.3Questionnaire
Prc-test
........................................................................
6.5 DataAnalysis Methods
159
162
163
...............................................................................
6.5.1 Step 1: Profiles of Respondents
..............................................................
6.5.2 Step2: Validity and Reliability of the Scales
..............................................
6.5.2.1 FactorAnalysis
.....................................................................
6.5.2.2 Reliability Analysis
................................................................
6.5.3 Step3: DescriptiveAnalysis
..... ..... . .... .. .. . ..............................
................
6.5.4 Step4: T-TestandANOVA Test
............................................................
6.5.5 Step5: Correlation Analysis
............... . .................................
...............
6.5.6 Step6: RegressionAnalysis
....... .. ........................................
................
6.6 Summary
................................................................................................
171
CHAPTER 7 Findings of (lie Research

7.1 Introduction
................................................................................................
7.2 Profiles of the Respondents
.............................................................................
176
7.3 Assessments of Validity and Reliability

..............................................................
7.3.1 Examination of the Personal Values Scale
.................................................
7.3.1.1 Validity and Reliability of Personal Values Scale
.............................
7.3.2 Examination of the Brand Equity Scale
....................................................
7.3.2.1 Construct Validity of the Brand Equity Scale
..................................
7.3.2.2 Criterion Related Validity of the Brand Equity Scale
........................
7.3.2.3 Reliability of the Brand Equity Scale
............................................
7.3.3 Examination of the Brand Loyalty Scale
.......................
. . ..........................
7.3.3.1 Reliability of the Brand Loyalty Scale
..........................................
7.4 Descriptive Analysis
......................................................................................
7.4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Personal Values
...................................................
7.4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Brand Equity
...........................
..... . .....................
7.4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Other Variables
...................................................
7.5 T-Test and ANOVA Test
..................................................................................
7.5.1 Di ffcrcnccs between Customer Tpcs
.......................................................
7.5.2 Differences between Genders
..................................................................
7.5.3 Differences among Age Groups
................................................................
7.6 Correlation Analysis
.......................................................................................
7.6.1 Correlation Matrix among Variables
.........................................................
7.7 Research Hypotheses and Model Testing
.............................................................
7.7.1 Effects of Personal Values on Brand Equity
.................................................
vii
164
165
168
169
171
171
172
173
177
183
183
183
187
187
191
194
196
196
197
197
199
200
201
201
203
204
206
207
210
210
7.7.2 Effects of Brand Equity on Brand Loyalty
.................................................
7.7.3 Mediating Effects of Brand Equity
............................................................
7.7.4 Moderating Effects of Value for Money
....................................................
7.8 Summary
....................................................................................................
CHAPTER 8 Discussion and Conclusion
8.1 Introduction
..................................................................................................
8.2 Objectivesof tile Research
...............................................................................
8.3 Review of the ResearchFindings
.......................................................................
8.4 Discussionof the ResearchFindings
...................................................................
8.4.1 PersonalValuesScale
..........................................................................
8.4.2 Brand Equity Scale
.............................................................................
8.4.3 Effects of PersonalValueson Brand Equity
................................................
..................................................
..........................................................
....................................................
8.5 Contributions of the Research
...........................................................................
8.5.1ThcorcticalContributions....................................................................
8.5.2PracticalandManagerialImplications
.....................................................
8.6LimitationsandFutureResearch
.......................................................................
214
216
218
221
225
225
226
227
230
233
234
235
236
238
240
240
242
246
APPENDIXES
AppendixA: Final Questionnaire

...........................................................................
AppendixB: The Sampleof InterviewTranscript
.......................................................
250
263
REFERENCES
.................................................................................................
272
viii
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 2
Table2.1 InternationalTourism by Receipts:LeadingTen Countries,2004-2006
Page
13
............
Table2.2 Contribution of Hospitality Industry to Employment (000),

December2002-2007
.....................................................................
Table2.3 Number of UK VAT-BascdEnterprisesEngagedin RestaurantBusiness,
2002-2006
..................................................................................
14
16
Tablc2.4TotalUK RcstaurantMcalsMarkctby Valucat CurrcntPriccs( 13m),

2003-2007
16
..................................................................................
Table2.5 LeadingChainRestaurant
Operatorsby Numberof Restaurants,
2007
18
............
Table2.6Numberof UK VAT-BascdEnterprises
Engagedin Hotel Operation,
2003-2007
..................................................................................
Tabic 2.7 Total UK I lotcl Markct by Valuc at Currcnt Priccs (13m), 2002-2006
19
Tablc 2.8 Lcading Chain I lotcl Opcratorsby Numbcr of Rooms,2007
22
........................
CIIAPTE113
Table3.1 Themesof Brand Definitions
.............................................................
Table3.2 PreviousResearchon Brand Equity
.....................................................
Table 3.3 Effects of Sclf-Estccm and Scif-ConsistcncyMotives on Purchase
Motivation/Intcntion
.......................................................................
Table3.4 LifestyleDimension
........................................................................
Table3.5 SERVQUALDimensions
.................................................................
32
37
44
52
59
CHAPTER 4
Table4.1TwoTypesof Valuesin the RokcachValueSurvey(RVS)

Table4.2 List of Values(LOV)
...........................
......................................................................
Table 4.3 Examplesof the Bchavioural Definitions of Brand Loyalty
.........................
Table 4.4 Examplesof the Attitudinal Dcrinitions of Brand Loyalty
...........................
Table 4.5 Examplesof the CompositeDefinitions of Brand Loyalty
...........................
Table 4.6 Typesof Brand Loyalty
....................................................................
Table4.7 Loyalty Typology Basedon Attitudc-Bchaviour Relationship
.......................
Table4.8 Jacobyand Chestnut'sLoyalty Categories
.............................................
Table4.9 Summaryof Brand Loyalty Characteristicsand Measures
...........................
Table4.10 Dcrinitions of CustomerSatisfaction
..................................................
Table4.11 Definitions of Value for Money
.........................................................
Table 4.12 Dimcnsion-BascdMeasurementof Value for Money
................................
ix
74
75
82
84
85
88
89
90
103
107
113
116
CHAPTER 5
Table 5.1 Summaryof Empirical StudiesInvestigatingthe Relationshipsamong
the Focal Variablesin the ResearchModel .............................................
126
CHAPTER 6
Table 6.1 Positivism and Intcrprctivism Compared
...............................................
Table 6.2 Critical Factorsin Selectingan Appropriate Sampling Design
......................
Table 6.3 Probability Sampling Methods
............................................................
Table 6.4 Non-probability Sampling Methods
......................................................
Table 6.5 Comparisonof Probability and Non-probability Sampling Methods
................
Table 6.6 Measurementof Variables
.................................................................
138
142
145
146
147
152
Table6.7 List of Restaurant

159
BrandsIncludedin the Questionnaire
..............................
Table6.8 List of Hotel BrandsIncludedin the Questionnaire
160
....................................
167
Table6.9Tpcsof Validity
.............................................................................
Table6.10Guidelinesfor IdentifyingSignificantFactorLodgingsBasedon
Sampic Sin
..............................................................................
Tabic 6.11Acccptablc Lcvcl of Cronbach'sAlpha
...............................................
169
170
CHAPTER 7
Table7.1 Resultsof FactorAnalysisfor the PersonalValuesScale

184
..............................
Table7.2 Reliabilityof the PersonalValuesScale
186
.................................................
Table7.3 Resultsof FactorAnalysisfor the BrandEquityScale
189
................................
Table 7.4 Summaryof Lincar Regression:The Brand Equity Scale,

Customersatisfaction,Overall Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty
...................
Table 7.5 Reliability of the Brand Equity Scale
...................................................
Table 7.6 Reliability of the Brand Loyalty Scale
..................................................
Table 7.7 DescriptiveAnalysis: PersonalValuesScale
...........................................
Table 7.8 Descriptive Analysis: Brand Equity Scale
..............................................
Table 7.9 Descriptive Analysis: Other Variables
...................................................
Table 7.10 Result of T-TestAccording to CustomerTpc
.........................................
Table 7.11 Result of T-TestAccording to Gender
..................................................
Table 7.12 Result of ANOVA TestAccording to Age Group
.....................................
Table 7.13 Correlation Matrix of the Relationshipsamong ResearchVariables
..............
Table 7.14 Summaryof RegressionAnalysis: PersonalValuesDimensionsand
Brand Equity Dimensions
...............................................................
Table 7.15 Summaryof RegressionAnalysis on Brand Loyalty
.................................
Table 7.16 Summaryof RegressionAnalysis: PersonalValuesDimensionsand
Brand Loyalty
.............................................................................
192
195
197
198
199
200
202
203
205
208
212
215
217
Table7.17ModeratingEffectsof Valuefor Moneyon the Relationship

Bctwccn Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty
...........................................
Tablc 7.18 Ilypothcscs Tcsting Rcsultsof the Rcscarch
..........................................
220
223
CHAPTER 8
Table8.1Emergence
from
Items
Values
Dimensions
Personal
this Research......... 232
and
of
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER I
Figure 1.1 Structureof the Thesis
Page
....................................................................
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.1 Characteristicsof Services
...............................................................
Figure 2.2 Growth of InternationalTourist Arrivals and Receipts,
1996-2007(% annual change)
..........................................................
Figure 2.3 Contributions by Service Sectorto GDP in DevelopedCountries,2007
Figure 2.4 Market Shareby Type of Restaurant(%), 2006
9
II
17
......................................
Figure 2.5 Classification of Hotels Inspectedby the Automobile Association, 2006
21
.........
Figure 2.6 AverageRoom Occupancyin tile UK I lotcls (%), 2001-2006
23
......................
Figure 2.7 Forecastof UK RestaurantMeals Market by Value
24
at Currcnt Priccs ( J3m), 2008-2012 ...................................................
Figure2.8 Forecastof UK I lotcl Marketby Valueat CurrentPrices( 13m),

2008-2011
..................................................................................
CHAPTER 3
Figure3.1 Brandis MoreThanProduct
................................... .........................
Figure3.2 FunctionsThat BrandsPlay
.......... ... ................. . ..............................
Figure3.3 Sclr-ConccptCongruence
Hypothesis
.................... . .............................
Figure3.4 DifferentMethodsof MeasuringScIr-Conccpt
Congruence
.........................
Figure3.5 LinkageBrandsto Lifcstylcs
.................................... ... .....................
Figure3.6 GoodsandServiceContinuum
........ ............... . . . . ...............................
Figure3.7 Gronroos'sNoridic Model
...............................................................
Figure3.8 GapsModelof ServiceQuality
. . ... ................ ....................................
Figure3 9 Criticismsof SERVQUAL
.
...............................................................
25
30
33
42
46
52
54
56
58
60
CHAPTER 4
Figure 4.1 Mcans-EndChain Model of Consumers'Product Knowledge
......................
Figure 4.2 VALS 2 Segments

.........................................................................
Figure 4.3 Heterogeneityof ResultsUsing TWoDifferent Bchavioural
Measurementsof Brand Loyalty
.......................................................
Figure 4.4 Expcctancy-DisconfirmationModel of CustomerSatisfaction
......................
71
77
97
III
CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.1 ProposedResearchModel
...............................................................
xii
121
Figure5.2 RevisedResearch
Model
................................................................
124
CHAPTER 6
Figure 6.1 Sampling Design Process
.................................................................
Figure 6.2 Classification of Sampling Methods
....................................................
Figure 6.3 Processof QuestionnaireDesign
........................................................
Figure 6.4 Directions and SampleQuestionsExtractedfrom Section B
........................
Figure 6.5 Directions and SampleQuestionsExtractedfrom Section C
........................
Figure 6.6 DataAnalysis Procedure
..................................................................
Figure 6.7 Forms of Reliability and Validity
.......................................................
140
144
149
161
162
164
165
CHAPTER 7
Figure 7.1 CustomerType RespondentsRepresent
................................................
Figure 7.2 GenderDistribution of Respondents
.....................................................
Figure 7.3 Age Group Distribution of Respondents
..............................
.................
Figure 7.4 Nationality Distribution of Respondents
...............................................
177
Figure 7.5 Educational Level Distribution of Respondents

.......................................
Figure 7.6 Distribution of Annual Personal Income of Respondents
............................
Figure 7.7 Current Employment Status of Respondents
.................
.........................
Figure 7.8 Frequency of Restaurant Visits/tIotcl Stays
...........................................
Figure 7.9 Purpose for Restaurant Visit/flotcl Stay
...............................................
Figure 7.10 Means of Personal Values Scale in Ascending Order
...............................
Figure 7.11 Means of Brand Scale in Ascending Order
............... . .. .........................
Figure 7.12 Means of Other Variables in Ascending Order
.......................................
Figure 7.13 Mcdiating Model for Brand Equity
...................................................
Figure 7.14 Moderating Model of Value for Money
..............................................
179
CHAPTER 8
Figurc 8.1 Summaryof Final RcscarchModd
.....................................................
xiii
178
178
179
180
180
181
182
198
199
201
216
219
229
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this thesis owes its significancc to all the people who have provided
guidanccandinstructionduringthe pcriodof my study.

The greatestappreciation must be paid to my supervisors,Dr. Yukscl Ekinci for his time and
cffort in supervising me throughout the research, and for pushing me to maintain my
motivation and ambition to the optimal level through both good times and bad; and Prorcssor
Andrew Lockwood for his valuable guidance and comments whenever I should make an
important decision during the research.Without their guidanceand support, I would not have
beenable to completethis thesis.
Last,but not least,I wish to dedicatethis studyto my parentswith deepestgratitudeandlove,

for the support, love and trust they haven given me throughout this study. I also express
to my sister'sfamiliesfor their endlesslove andsupport.

appreciation
xiv
CHAPTER 1
Chypter1. Introduction
JIVam.2008
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1Background of the Research

Increasedcompetitionin the hospitalityindustryhas led many firms to focuson branding
(BaileyandBall, 2006).Brandingplays
strategiesin orderto attaincompetitiveadvantages
a specialrole in hospitality firms becausestrongbrandsincreasecustomers'trust of the
invisiblepurchase(Berry,2000).Thus,growingemphasisexistsfor building andmanaging
brandsasthe primarydriver for a hospitalityfirm's success(Kim andKim, 2004),Overthe
last decade,firms havemarkedlyincreasedtheir investmentsin building and maintaining
their brands,and brandinghasenjoyedincreasedconsiderationas primary capital in many
businesses
(DcI Rio ct al., 2001).The view that a brandcan be an importantasset,which
hasvalue to both consumersand brand-owningfirms, has conccptualizationin the tcnn,
brand equity (Bailey and Ball, 2006). Basically,brand equity stems from the greater
conridcnccthat consumersplacein a chosenbrandthanthey do in its rejectedcompetitors
(Lassarct al., 1995).This confidencetranslatesinto a numberof possiblebenefitsto a firm:
greater brand loyalty, larger prorit margins, increased marketing communication
brand-cxtcnsion
and
opportunities(Keller, 2001; 11sich,2004). Therefore,
cffcctivcncss
2.
.
Choler 1. Introduction
JNam. 2008
brandequityhasbeenregardedasa growingareaof research(Yoo and Donthu,2001;Kim

ct al., 2003).
Although the issue of brand equity has emergedas one of the most important aspectsof
branding, relatively limited research exists regarding brand equity within service sector
brands,especially hospitality brands. This lack of literature arises from the fact that most
researchershave concentratedon product brands (Kim ct al., 2003). 1lowcvcr, Prasadand
Dcv (2000) suggested that brands with strong equity would be an cfficicnt path for
hospitality firms to idcntiry and difTcrcntiatc themselves in the minds of customers.
Moreover, becauseresearchershave focused primarily on dcrining and measuring brand
equity, little empirical researchis forthcoming which studiesthe creation of brand equity or
its antecedentsand consequences.Accordingly, the purposeof this researchis to contribute
understandingof brand equity and its antecedentsand consequencesin the hospitality
industry.
1.2 Objectives of the Research

The main objectiveof this researchis to investigatethe antecedents
and consequences
of
brandequity in the hospitalityindustry.Basedon the aboveoutlined generalbackground,
theobjcctivcsof this rcscarcharc:
i)
To idcntify the undcrlying dimcnsionsof pcrsonalvalucs and brand cquity.
To invcstigatcthe mccliatingcffcctsof brandcquity on the rclationshipbctwccn

pcrsonalvalucsandbrandloyalty.
iii)
To cxaminewlictlicr or not valuc for moncymodcratcsthe rclationshipbctwccn

brandcquity andbrandloyalty.
1.3 Structure of the Thesis

The thesisconsistsof eight chapters.Figure 1.1 showsstructureof the thesis.
3.
.
J.Aram.2008
Chgpler-1.Introduction
Figure I. I: Structureof the Thesis
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CIIAI'rEll
LITERATUREREVIEW I:
AN OVERVIEW OFT[ IE I IOSPITALITY
INDUSTRYINTHE UK
CIIAI'rER3
LITERATUREREVIEW 11:
TI IE CONCEPTOF BRAND EQUITY
CIIAIvrEll
LITERATUREREVIEWIII:
THE ANTECEDENTSAND CONSEQUENCES
OF BRANDEQUITY
CHAPTER 5
T1IE RESEARCII MODEL
I
CIIAI'rEll
METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 7
FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH
I
CHAPTER 8
DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSION
4.
.
Chanter 1. Introduction
ram.2008
Chapter 2 reviews the literature on the hospitality industry in the UK. The chapter begins
with introducing the unique characteristics of the hospitality product in contrast to
manufacturedgoods. Furthermore, backgroundabout the restaurantand hotel market and
economic overview about performance of restaurants and hotels in the UK arc also
reviewed.
Chapter 3 rcvicws the litcraturc on brand cquity. Attcntion focuscs cspccially on
componentsof brand equity: self-concept,brand identification, lifestyle and perceived

quality.
brand
Chapter 4 reviewsthe literatureon the antecedents
consequences
of
and
equity.This
chapterbeginswith reviewing personalvaluesas an antecedentof brand equity. In the
is
following section,brandloyalty as a consequence
brand
of
equity reviewed.In addition,
the customersatisfactionand value for money literature involving the definitions and
difTcrcnttypesof evaluationsarc presented.
Chapter5 presentsthe researchmodel.This chapterbeginswith a proposedresearchmodel,
followed by tile processof qualitativestudy to test the proposedresearchmodel,and a
revisedresearchmodel in light of the qualitativedata. Furthermore,previousempirical
The final partof this chapteraddresses
the
studieswhich supportthe researcharc presented.
researchpropositionsbasedon the revisedresearchmodel.
Chapter 6 dcscribcs the mcthodology for this rcscarch, including rcscarch philosophy,
sampling dcsign, clucstionnaircdcsign and data analysis mcthods.This chaptcr prcscntsthe
prc-tcst,which showsthe processfor generatingthe final questionnaire.
Chaptcr 7 presentsthe findings of this research.
Chapter 8 provides overall discussionand conclusionsof the empirical outcomesobtained
from the previouschapterandmakessuggestions

for furtherresearchin this ficid.
5.
CHAPTER 2
Chapter2. LiteratureReviewI
JIVam.2008
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW I:
AN OVERVIEW OF THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY IN THE UK
2.1 Introduction
The word, "hospitality," derives from the Latin verb hospitare, meaning "to receive as a
gucst." This principal meaning focuseson a host who receives,welcomes,and catcrsto tile
homes.
from
The phrase "to receive as a gucst"
their
temporarily
needsof people
away
implies a host preparedto meet a guest'sbasic requirements:traditionally, food, beverages,
and lodging. If the word hospitality rcfcrs to the act of providing food, beverages,and
lodging to people,then the hospitality industry consistsof businessesthat do this (Dittmcr,
2002).
The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the hospitality industry in the
UK. The first part of this chapter addressesthe characteristics of service products in
contrastto manufacturedgoods. Then, a discussionof the history of the industry's growth
follow.
its
The
significance
next part of the chapter provides an overview of the UK
and
hospitality industry, including restaurantsand hotels. Finally, the last section provides an
future
the
growth prospectsof the UK hospitality industry.
overview of
-7-
Chapter 2. Literature Review I
JNam, 2008
2.2 The Hospitality Industry

The hospitality industry is a difficult sector to define due to the significant mutual
dependenceamong hospitality, leisure and tourism industries, and the dividing line
betweenthem is open to debate(Powersand Barrows, 2006). Jones(2002, p. 1) mentioned
that hospitality consists of two distinct services: "the provision of overnight
accommodationfor people staying away from home, and the provision of sustenancefor
people eating away from home or not preparing their own meals." Guerrier et al. (1998,
p.23) also defined hospitality industry as "the serviced provision of food, beverages,
accommodation, leisure and other facilities purchased out of home." The industry
encompasseshotels, restaurants,pubs and clubs, guest houses, self-catering operations,
leisure and sport facilities as well as public and private sector catering. Especially, hotel
and restaurantventures are now quite widely included in the hospitality industry, and are
key membersof that sector(Buttle, 1994).
2.2.1Servicesand Goods
Since hospitality, as a product, is part of the service industry sector, distinguishing services
from goodsis essential.According to Gronroos(1990, p.27), service is:
An activity or series of activities of more or less intangible nature that normally,
but not necessarily,take place in interactions between the customer and service
employees and/or physical resources or goods and/or systems of the service
provider, which are provided as solutionsto customerproblems.
From a guest'spoint of view, the service is an experience.It is the sum of everything that
happensin connectionwith a transactionor seriesof transactions(Hsu and Powers,2002).
In addition, Hoffman and Bateson (1997, p.5) explained the distinction between services
and goods: "Goods can be defined as objects, devices, or things; whereas servicescan be
defined as deeds,efforts, or performances." However, services are very difficult to define
is
due
This
fact
to
the
to
that the distinction betweengoods and servicesis not
classify.
and
(Hoffman
and Bateson, 1997). The following section presentsdetails of the
always clear
-8-
Chgpler 2. Literature Review I
JNam. 2008
characteristicsof servicesthat differentiatethem from goods.
2.2.1.1 Characteristics of Services

Services, including hospitality services, have a number of distinctive characteristicsthat
differentiate them from goods. Four well-documented characteristics of services are
intangibility, variability, perishability and inseparability.These must be acknowledgedfor a
full understandingof hospitality products (Parasuramanet al., 1985). Figure 2.1 showsthe
characteristicsof services.
Figure 2.1: Characteristicsof Services
Inseparability
Intangibility
Services cannot be seen,
tasted, felt, heard, or smelled
before purchase.
Services cannot be separated

from their providers.
Service
Perishability
Variability
Quality of services depends
on who provides them and
when,where,andhow.
Servicescannotbe stored
for later saleor use.
Source: Kotler et al. (2003, p.42)

As shown in Figure 2.1, first of all, the fundamentaldifference is intangibility. Intangibility
is the most remarkablecharacteristicof service. Service cannot be tasted,touched, seen,or
smelled prior to purchase (Bamert and Wehrli, 2005). When purchasing goods, the
consumeremploysmany tangible cuesto judge quality such as style, hardness,color, labels,
packaging,and so on. When purchasingservices,fewer tangible cues exist. In most cases,
the serviceprovider's physical facilities, equipment,and personnelare the limited tangible
evidence(Parasuramanet al., 1985). This often createsdifficulty for customersto assessa
-9-
Chgpter 2. Literature Review I
JNam, 2008
servicebefore buying, or even after purchasing(Jobber,2004). Intangibility also meansthat

the customercannot own a service. Service is an experiencerather than a possession.After
buying the service, therefore, customershave nothing but memories of their experiencesto
considerand discuss(Lewis and Chambers,2000).
Second,inseparability of production and consumptionis another characteristicof services.
Productsare first produced then sold and later consumed.However, service, once sold, is
commonly produced and consumed simultaneously (Zeithaml et al., 1985). Neither the
customers nor the providers can entirely control the service quality in advance
(Parasuraman et al., 1985). Further, inseparability means that services cannot be
disassociatedfrom providers, whether they are machinesor people. The inseparability of
service places more importance on the customer-producerinteraction, thus becoming a
significant determinantof perceivedservicequality (Kotler et al., 2003).
Third, variability is also a typical characteristicof services.As service involves people in
production and consumption,the important potential for variability remains.No two service
performancesare exactly the same(Kotler et al., 2003). The quality and essenceof a service
can vary from producer to producer, from customer to customer, and from situation to
situation.That makesservice more difficult to standardize(Zeithaml et al., 1985).
The last characteristicis perishability, which meansthat servicescannot be held or stored.
For example, a hotel room which remains unsold on one day cannot be held until a later
date (Jonesand Lockwood, 2004). Time is part of service and once that time passes,the
service opportunity no longer exists (Adcock et al., 2001). When demand is steady,
perishability of service is not a problem. When demand fluctuates, however, service
businessesconfront the problem that servicecannotbe accumulatedas inventory. Therefore,
matching supply and demandis important (Parasuramanet al., 1985).
10-
Chypter 2. Literature Review I
JNam, 2008
2.2.2 Growth and Significance of the Hospitality Industry

Most countries in the world accept the hospitality industry as a major economic player,
regardless of the differences in economy systems. The industry has a great impact on a
country's national economy such as generating more revenues, creating more jobs,
balancing the international trade payments, and improving infrastructure (Yu, 1999). The
British Hospitality Association (2007) estimated that value of the hotel and restaurant
industry in the UK economy is about 2.9% of gross domestic product (GDP), and the
industry employed over 1.8 million people in 2006. Moreover, the hospitality industry has
increasingly expanded in the last decades, and it is probably one of the world's fastestgrowing industries (Clarke and Chen, 2007).
Although the primary focus of this research is on the hospitality industry, describing
briefly interrelated aspects of the hospitality industry is necessary. From the perspective of
the hospitality industry, the development of the hospitality industry directly associates with
travel and tourism movement (Buttle,
1994). According to the National Restaurant
Association (2006), more than two-thirds of restaurant operators consider tourists to be the
main profit source for their businesses. Figure 2.2 represents the growth of international
tourist arrivals and receipts from 1996-2007.
Figure 2.2: Growth of International Tourist Arrivals and Receipts, 1996-2007
(% annual change)
IM Arrivals Me:ceipts
(%)
1996
1997
Note: P- Provisional
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Source: World Tourism Organization (2007)
2006
P2007
JNam. 2008
Tourism remainsthe world's fastestgrowing industry with an annual averagegrowth rate of

over 4% in the number of travelers and over 3% in receipts from travelers between 1996
and 2007. The world's total arrivals have expandedover the last decadesand so have
Ph
international
Although
I
September
2001
the
the
tourism in
receipts.
affected
eventsof
of
the later years of this period, some recovery occurred in 2002. Travel arrivals and receipts
declined again as a result of the war in Iraq and severeacute respiratory syndrome(SARS)
in 2003, but 2004 showed a marked increase.The trend of the past four years,as shown in
the Figure 2.2, is likely to continue- i.e. with receiptsrising more slowly than arrivals. This
is largely attributable to the fact that most current growth in tourism demand is for shorter
trips, using low-cost/low-fare airlines. The average expenditure per trip is falling, and
overnight volume also showsmore modestgrowth (Key Note Hotel, 2007).
Undoubtedly the hospitality industry follows international tourist demand. Regional
hospitality development patterns are parallel to regional international travel patterns.
International travel by region can reveal travel patterns in different parts of the world and
identify potential opportunities for hospitality expansion(Yu, 1999). Regionally, Europe is
by far the most popular tourism destination with Asia and countries in the Pacific area
representinga poor second. For 2006, Europe accounted for 54.4% of all international
travel arrivals, Asia and the Far East 19.8%, America 16.1%, the Middle East 4.9% and
Africa 4.8% (World Tourism Organization, 2007). Table 2.1 illustrates the leading ten
countriesby receiptsfrom 2004 to 2006.
-12-
JNam. 2008
Table 2.1: InternationalTourism by Receipts:LeadingTen Countries,2004-2006

2004
Rank
P2006
2005
Receipts Arrivals
Receipts Arrivals
Country
Country
(US$m) ('000s)
(US$m) ('000s)
Receipts Arrivals
Country
(US$m) ('000s)
USA
74,500
46,100
USA
81,800
49,200
USA
85,700
51,100
Spain
45,200
52,400
Spain
48,000
55,900
Spain
51,100
58,500
France
40,800
75,100
France
44,000
76,000
France
46,300
79,100
Italy
35,700
37,100
Italy
35,400
35,400
Italy
38,100
41,100
UK
28,200
27,800
UK
30,700
28,000
China
33,900
49,600
China
25,700
41,800
China
29,300
46,800
UK
33,500
32,713
20.100 Germany 29,200
21,500 Germany 32,800
23,600
20,300 Australia 17,800
5,000
Germany 27,700
Turkey
15,900
16,800
Austria
15,300
19,400 Australia 16,900
5,000
Turkey
16,900
18,900
Austria
20,000
Austria
16,700
20,300
10
Australia 13,600
5,200
Turkey
18,200
16,000
Source: British Hospitality Association (2007, p. 12)
As Table2.1 shows,USA wasa dominantcountryin both internationaltouristarrivalsand

receiptsin 2006. Within Europe,Franceis still the most populardestinationin termsof
arrivals,but Spainearnsmore.The UK hada goodyearin 2006,andearlyfiguresfor 2007
indicatefurtherannualgrowthestimatedat some4% (British HospitalityAssociation,2007).
Clearly,Europeattractsthe major shareof tourist arrivalsand receipts.Perhapsthe high
living standards
enjoyedby the westernandnorthernEuropeancountries,their long leisure
time andmostimportant,relativelysmallcountriesthat arecloseto eachotherexplainthis
pattern(Yu, 1999).Australiaoccupiedthe eighthposition in termsof receiptsin spiteof
having far fewer arrivals, in 2006, than any of the other leading countries (British
HospitalityAssociation,2007).
Hospitality is a very important componentof the service sector in any country's national
economy.The priority of economic developmenthas shifted toward the service sector in
the developedcountries(Buttle, 1994;Yu, 1999).Figure 2.3 representsthe contributionsof
the servicesectorto GDP in somedevelopedcountriesin 2007.
13-
Chgj2ter 2. Literature Review I
JNam, 2008
Figure 2.3: Contributions
by Service Sector to GDP in Developed Countries, 2007
(%)
Japan
UK
Netherlands
France
Belgium
United States
Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2007)
As shown in Figure 2.3, in 2007, the service sector accounted for over 70% of GDP in the
economies of developed countries such as Japan, UK, Netherlands, Belgium, France and
the United States. Over the last few decades, the service sector, of which the hospitality
industry is a part, has grown by nearly 20% in developed countries (United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, 2007). According to Lovelock and Wright (2002),
such development trends are apparent, not only in those developed countries but also in
other developing countries such as China, India and Mexico.
Employment statistics also reflect the increasing importance of the hospitality industry for
national economics. According to the British Hospitality Association (2007), hospitality is
the country's most geographically wide-spread industry, offering employment to one in ten
of the working population and accounting for one in five new jobs. Table 2.2 shows the
contribution to employment in the US market between 2002 and 2007.
Table 2.2: Contribution of Hospitality Industry to Employment (000), December 2002-2007

Year
Number of
Employees
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
12,112
12,320
12,632
12,907
13,288
13,635
Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007)
14
JNam. 2008
As shown in Table 2.2, the number of hospitality-linked employeeshas steadily increased

hospitality
industry
in
in
2002
In
2007,
the
US.
the
the
since
number of employees
increasedto 13,635,000and recordeda 2.6% growth over the previous year. According to
the U. S Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007), accommodationsand food servicesconstituted
about 8.4% of all employment in the US. The hospitality industry's contribution to job
growth and employment in the last decadeshas consistently grown more rapidly than
2006).
(Powers
Barrows,
in
the
and
employment
economyas a whole
Considering the various facts, the hospitality industry, now, shares significantly in the
national economy, creating employment and contributing to wealth. Moreover, the
hospitality industry has consistently expandedin the last few decades,and it will continue
to grow. Based on these findings, an overview of the UK hospitality industry, especially
the hotel and restaurantsegments,appearsin the following section.
2.2.3Hospitality Industry in the UK

The hospitality industry is probably the world's fastest-growing,job-creating commercial
sector,employing one in ten people worldwide (Powersand Barrows, 2006). Also, in the
UK, the hospitality industry is one of the most significant sectorsof the UK economy in
,
terms of earningsand employment (British Hospitality Association, 2007). The following
industry.
hotel
details
UK
the
restaurantand
sectionpresents
of
2.2.3.1 UK Restaurant Industry

The UK restaurant market features a mixture of individual, independent outlets and
branded chains. The restaurant segment remains relatively resilient, since even in an
economicdownturn, people still enjoy eating away from home, and their tastesin food are
eclectic (Key Note Restaurant,2007). The restaurantbusinessplays an important role in
is
out
now a part of most customers' lives. Eating out has steadily
society, since eating
in
leisure
lifestyles
UK
to
the
a
central
position
of
consumers(Walker,2008).
closer
moved
is-
ChqRter 2. Literature Review I

.
JNam, 2008
Thus, the market is expandingto allow growth for all types of restaurantswith a variety of
choices,ranging from traditional to newer additions such as Asian restaurants(Key Note
Restaurant,2006). Table 2.3 shows the number of UK VAT-basedenterprisesengagedin
the operationof restaurantsbetween2002 and 2006.
Table 2.3: Number of UK VAT-BasedEnterprisesEngagedin RestaurantBusiness,
2002-2006
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of Restaurants
47,690
48,840
50,255
51,980
53,020
% change
2002-2006
11.2%
% changeyear-to-year
2.4%
3.4%
2.9%
2.0%
Source: Adapted from Key Note Restaurant(2007,p.2 1)

As shown in Table 2.3, the number of restaurant businessesregistered for VAT has
increasedfrom 47,690 in 2002 to 53,020 in 2006 which shows that the UK restaurant
market has beenexpandingsince 2002. The market,traditionally populatedby many small
operators,has encounteredan increasednumber of large operators.In 2005,38.6% of all
restaurantbusinesseshad annual turnover of less than F.10,000; this share is a decrease
from 43.2% in 2002. Nevertheless,a mere 3.2% of restaurantbusinesseshave a turnover
in excessof E Im (Key Note Restaurant,2006). Table 2.4 shows the total UK restaurant
mealsmarket by value at current prices from 2003 to 2007.
Table 2.4: Total UK RestaurantMeals Market by Value at Current Prices (9 m),
2003-2007
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
12007
Current Prices
11,355
12,025
12,600
12,875
13,100
% change
2003-2007
15.4%
5.9%
4.8%
2.2%
1.7%
Source: Adapted from Key Note Restaurant (2007, p. 10)
Table 2.4 showsthat the estimatedvalue of the total UK market for restaurantmealshad a
-16-
JNam, 2008
worth of S12.87bn in 2006, an increase of 2.2% over 2005. Key Note Restaurant (2007)
estimates that the market will increase by a further 1.7%, to 213.1bn in 2007. Between
2003 and 2007, the projection for the restaurant market is for an increase of 15.4% at
current prices. The UK market has been buoyant in recent years, with increases in the
number of outlets and customer spending. This growth is due to the fact that eating away
from home goes beyond simply satisfying hunger and has become a popular form of
entertainment (Warde and Martens, 2000).
The UK restaurantmarket consists of different types of outlets in a range of different

sectors. According to the Key Note Restaurant(2006), classifying the UK restaurant
market results in nine types: fast food, pubs and hotels, Asian, pizza/pasta, chicken,
roadside,British cafes/restaurants,and continental/themed/other.Thesevery distinct styles
of restaurantshave significant market sharesof the restaurantmeals market in the UK.
Figure 2.4 representsthe market sharebasedon thesetypesof restaurants.
Figure 2.4: Market Shareby Type of Restaurant(%), 2006
Continental/
Themed/Other
16.8%
0 Fast Food
Fast Food
22.6%
BritishCafes/
Restaurant,
14%
0 Pubs and Hotels

OAsian
13Pizza/Pasta
0 Chicken
Roadside
4.9%
Chicken
5.3%
Pizza/Pasta
8.3%
Asian
10.2%
Pubs and Hotels

17.7%
13Roadside
N British Cafes/Restaurants
13Continental/Themed/Other
Source: Key Note Restaurant (2006, p. 19)

As shown in Figure 2.4, fast food restaurants, as a whole, account for the largest
proportion, 22.6%, of the UK restaurant market. The market shares of the second and third
largest types of restaurant are continental/themed/others and pubs/hotels, accounting for
16.8% and 17.7%, respectively. In addition, British cafes/restaurants account for 14% of
the UK restaurant market, Asian 10.2%, pizza/pasta 8.3%, chicken 5.3% and roadside
17-
Chapter 2. Literature ReviewI
JNam, 2008
4.9%. Especially, chicken and pizza/pastarestaurantshave shown the strongest growth

since 2000. To a great extent, both sectorstarget families and young adults, and they have
taken market share from fast food and from the more traditional British cafes/restaurants
(Key Note Restaurant,2006).
The UK restaurantmarket is essentially polarized between a handful of national chains
and thousandsof independents.In evaluating market leadership among restaurants,the
most prominent are really the thousandsof independentrestaurantsthat account for more
than half the supply in the UK. However, the fragmentationof the market meansthat only
operatorsof multiple chains can really be describedas market leaders.The easiestway to
rank the multiples is by number of restaurants,but turnover per restaurantvaries so widely
that the number of outlets is not an accurateyardstick (Key Note Restaurant,2005; 2006;
2007). Table 2.5 shows the leading chain restaurantoperators in the UK by number of
restaurants.
Table 2.5: Leading Chain RestaurantOperatorsby Number of Restaurants,2007
Company
Brands
No. of Restaurants
Yum! Brands
KFC, Pizza Hut
1,377
McDonald's
McDonald's
1,247
Subway
Subway
879
SSP
Upper Crust, Millie's Cookies
639
Burger King
Burger King
638
Gondola
Pizza Express,Ask, Zizzi
525
Mitchells & Butlers
Harvester,Browns, Toby Carvery
477
Domino's
Domino's
470
Spirit Group
Chef & Brewer,Two for One, Miller's
402
RestaurantGroup
Frankie & Benny's, Garfunkels
284
Wimpy
Wimpy
252
Whitbread
Beefeater,Brewer's Fayre
237
People'sRestaurantGroup
Little Chef
230
Tragus
Bella Italia, Caf6 Rouge,Strada,Belgo,

Mo Potter's
228
Source: British Hospitality Association (2007,p.64)
-18-
Choter 2. Literature ReviewI
J.Nam. 2008
As Table2.5 presents,the UK's largestoperatoris Yum! Brands,a chain of KFC and Pizza
Hut, with a total of 1,377 restaurants.The vast resourcesof Yum! Brands, which claims to
be the world's largest restaurantcompany in terms of system restaurants,have enabled
KFC and Pizza Hut to expand rapidly and continuously in the UK. McDonald's
Restaurants,easily the most ubiquitous single brand in the UK, as it is acrossthe world, is
second, in terms of restaurant numbers, with approximately 1,247. The next most
numerous,totaling 879, is Subway.Other prominent players include SSPand Burger King,
with 639 and 638 outlets respectively. In addition, Gondola (525), Mitchells & Butlers
(477), Domino's (470), Spirit Group (402), Restaurant Group (284), Wimpy (252),
Whitbread (237), People's RestaurantGroup (230) and Tragus Holdings (228) are also
major chain restaurantoperatorswith regard to the number of outlets (British Hospitality
Association,2007).
2.2.3.2 UK Hotel Industry
TheUK hotelindustryis considered

very importantwithin the globalmarket.UK is a major
tourismdestinationfor overseasvisitors,andas such,attractsthe major internationalhotel
brands.The successof the hotelmarketis dependent
on a rangeof factors,which meansit
is vulnerableto externalinfluences.The UK hotel marketrecentlyhas experiencedsome
flooding in
challenges,including the introductionof a smokingban and unprecedented
many regionsacrossthe country,but despitethese,the hotel industry continuesto be
incrediblyresilient(Key Note Hotel,2007;British HospitalityAssociation,2007).Table2.6
in
hotel operationfrom 2003to
UK
VAT-based
the
engaged
shows numberof
enterprises
2007.
Table 2.6: Number of UK VAT-BasedEnterprisesEngagedin Hotel Operation,2003-2007
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Number of Hotels
9,530
9,030
9,110
8,925
8,810
% change
2002-2006
-7.6%
-5.2%
-0.9%
Source: Adapted from Key Note Hotel (2007, p. 15)
-19-
-2.0%
-1.3%
JNam, 2008
As shown in Table 2.6, the number of enterprisesinvolved in hotel operation in the UK has
fallen by 7.6% between 2003 and 2007. Over a 5-year period, around 700 businesseshave
less
E
than
2003,
Since
earnings
the
with
the
percentageof enterprises
exited
sector.
250,000has fallen, while the proportion of enterpriseswith turnover of ;0500,000 or more
has increased.This reflects small groupsand independentoperatorsleaving the hotel market,
from
the
the
level
high
at
upper
end
of
mergers
resulting
consolidation
as well as a
of
been
in
have
targets
takeover
turn
Larger
of
other
ones
and
smaller
market.
chains acquired
hotel
by
UK
2.7
Table
total
2007).
Note
the
(Key
Hotel,
market
value at
shows
groups
currentprices from 2002 to 2006.
Table 2.7: Total UK Hotel Market by Value at Current Prices(; Gm), 2002-2006
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Current Prices
10.859
11,462
12,292
13,171
14,000
% change
2002-2006
31.41%
changeyear-to-year
5.6%
7.3%
7.2%
6.3%
Source:Adaptedfrom Key Note Hotel (2007,p.10)

As shown in Table 2.7, the UK hotel market has achieved year-to-year increasessince
2002. Although 2001 marked a low point of the market becauseof the outbreak of footd'
1,
11
September
200
the
the
in
disease
the
of
of
the
events
and
year
early
and-mouth
income
in
(9
14,000
improvement
has
gross
of
m)
with a
market
subsequentlyshown
2006. This trend is the result of several factors: First, the expansion of the budget hotel
Second,
the
has
to
a number of major
market.
access
enabled more customers
sector
hotels,
into
4-star
5-star
from
invested
the
have
the
market
to
and
middle of
move
players
have
Third,
higher
has
positive
economic
conditions
prices.
which
allowed charging
levels
foreign
domestic.
both
Growth
budgets,
for
larger
backdrop
travel
and
provided a
in
(Key
UK
hotel
inflation,
indicating
the
impressive,
expansion
market
real
a
aheadof
are
Note Hotel, 2007; British Hospitality Association,2007).
In July 2005, an announcement,for the first time, touted a single method for assessingand
-20-
Chqpter 2. Literature Review I
JNam, 2008
UK's
from
This
the
among
an
agreement
rating serviced accommodations.
method arose
main accreditation
bodies including
the National
Tourist Boards, the Automobile
Association and the Royal Automobile Club. Assessment of all accommodation occurs
annually after January 2006, and operators choosing not to be rated under the new standards
are excluded from all marketing activity and materials provided by tourist boards and
guidebooks. According to the assessments,UK hotels receive a rating from one to five stars.
Budget hotels are registered and listed but not graded (Key Note Hotel, 2006). Figure 2.5
in
inspected
Association
2006.
hotels
by
Automobile
the
the
represents
classification of
Figure 2.5: Classification of Hotels Inspected by the Automobile Association, 2006

Budget Hotels
17.1%
One Star
0.4%
Two Star
17.5%
Five Star
2.3%
M One Star
M Two Star
13Three Star
C3Four Star
E Five Star
Four Star
18.2%
N Budget Hotels
Three Star
44.5%
Source: Adapted from British Hospitality Association (2007, p. 27)
As shown in the Figure 2.5, three star hotels, as a whole, constitute the largest proportion,
44.5% of the UK hotel market. Of UK hotels, 18.2% rate four stars, 17.5% rate two stars,
17.1% are budget hotels, 2.3% are five stars, and 0.4% rate one star. However, the larger
chains have moved hotels into the budget, 4-star and 5-star sectors of the market, leaving
lesser investment in the 3-star sector. Especially, budget hotels are, without doubt, the
fastest-growing sector of the UK hotel industry with greatest scope for expansion (British
Hospitality Association, 2007; Key Note Hotel, 2007).
The UK hotel market comprises a diverse group of operators. While the UK sector includes
representatives of international chains and growing domestic chains, a considerable number
of independent, owner-operator properties remain. However, in the UK hotel market, the
major players are the chain hotels operated by groups such as Whitbread Hotel Company
and InterContinental Hotels Group (Key Note Hotel, 2007; British Hospitality Association,
-21 -
JNam, 2008
2007). Table2.8 showsthe leading UK chain hotel operatorsby number of rooms.

Table 2.8: Leading Chain Hotel Operators by Number of Rooms, 2007
Company
Brands
No. of Hotels
No. of Rooms
WhitbreadHotel Company
488
PremierInn
32,600
InterContinentalHotelsGroup
241
InterContinental
(1), CrownPlaza(15),
32,540
HolidayInn (116),Expressby HolidayInn (109)

Travelodge
310
Accor Hotels
119
18,950
Sofitel (2), Novotel (30), Mercure (26), Ibis (49)
15,722
Etap (7), Formule 1 (5)

Hilton Hotel Corporation
73
Hilton (73)
15,300
Marriott International
63
Renaissance
(9), Marriott (54),
13,041
Wyndham Worldwide
99
Days Inn (25), Day Hotel (9),
9,696
Ramada Encore (5), Ramada (59)

Wyndham Hotels & Resorts (1)
Thistle Hotels
39
Thistle (37), Guoman (2)
8,792
The Real Hotel Company/
104
Clarion (3), Comfort (35), Quality (52)
8,154
Choice Hotels international

Carlson Hotels Worldwide
SleepInn (9), Stop Inn (5)

33
Radisson(11), Park Inn (14)
7,069
Park Plaza(7), Country Inns & Suites(1)

Britannia Hotels
33
De Vere
57
7,000
De Vere Deluxe (8), De Vere Heritage (5)
6,989
De Vere Venues (27), Village (17)

Source:
British
Hospitality
Association
(2007,
p. 28)
Whitbread Hotel Company leads the major players in the UK market. Whitbread consists of
a chain of Premier Inn, created from Whitbread's merger of the Premier Lodge and Travel
Inn brands and totaling 488 hotels and 32,600 rooms. InterContinental Hotels Group is
second, in terms of hotel room numbers, including InterContinental, Crown Plaza, Holiday
Inn and Express by Holiday Inn with 241 hotels and 32,540 rooms. The next most
numerous is Travelodge, the nearest rival to Premier Inn, totaling 310 hotels and 18,950
-22-
JNam, 2008
in
for
(numbers
in
UK
Other
each
are
the
of rooms
market
rooms.
major operators
(15,300),
Marriott
Corporation
Hotel
Hilton
(15,722),
include
Accor
Hotels
parenthesis)
International (13,041), Wyndham Worldwide (9,696), Thistle Hotels (8,792), The Real
Hotel Company/Choice Hotels International (8,154), Carlson Hotels Worldwide (7,069),
Britannia Hotels (7,000) and De Vere (6,989) (Key Note Hotel, 2007; British Hospitality
Association, 2007).
The UK hotel market is oversupplied, as evidencedby room occupancyrates at the 60%

level. Therefore, the hotel market has attemptedto boost occupancy levels with packages
instance,
leisure
For
domestic
focus
the
travellers
market.
that
and
on
and promotions
InterContinental Hotels Group undertook a direct marketing campaign to encourage
2005;
2006;
Note
Hotel,
leisure
(Key
business
both
travel,
targeting
markets
and
continental
2007). Figure 2.6 showsthe averageroom occupancyin UK hotels between2001 and 2006.
Figure 2.6: AverageRoom Occupancyin the UK Hotels (%), 2001-2006
10/
I0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source: Adapted from Key Note Hotel (2007, p-5)
As shown in Figure 2.6, average room occupancy marked a low point in 2001, due to the
outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which led to restricted access in some areas of the
country and served to discourage potential visitors. In addition, overseas tourism was
th
September 2001. An ongoing improvement
by
II
terrorist
the
the
affected
attacks on
from 2002 to 2004 was reversed in 2005, as tourism reacted to the July bombings in
London. In 2006, the hotel market experienced the highest levels of average room
occupancy. This improvement in room occupancy rates has, in some cases, been at the
-23 -
Chgj2ter 2. Literature Review I
JNam, 2008
in
being
expense of room rates, with cheaper room prices
order to improve
offered
volumes. However, even in these cases, a positive contribution remains for overall
revenues, derived from additional services such as food and beverage sales (Key Note
Hotel, 2005; 2006; 2007).
2.2.4 Future Growth
Tourism will become one of the largest industries in the world. With elimination of
barriers to international travel and improving economies, global travel will continue to
grow at a steady pace in the future. As an integral part of tourism, the hospitality industry
will respond to the rapid growth of international travel by expanding operations globally.
However, political, economic and technological changes can have a great impact on the
development of hospitality businesses, and these forces will shape the future of the
hospitality industry (Yu, 1999; Cetron et al., 2006).
The UK hospitality industry has grown in recent years with increasesin the customers'
spending.Thesetrends in growth appearsustainableinto the future. The Key Note Hotel
(2007) and Key Note Restaurant(2007) reports very promising prospectsfor the future of
the UK hospitality industry. Figure 2.7 representsthe forecastfor the UK restaurantmeals
market by value at current prices from 2008 to 2012.
Figure 2.7: Forecast of UK Restaurant Meals Market by Value at Current Prices (. Cm),
2008-2012
(Value)
2008
2009
2010
Source: Adapted from Key Note Restaurant (2007, p.67)

-24-
2011
2012
JNam, 2008
As shown in Figure 2.7, the value forecast of the UK restaurant meals market will grow by
21% at current prices, from 2008 to 2012. The expected market benefit is from a continued
increase in the number of restaurant outlets in the UK, improvements in the variety and
quality of food offerings and increasing tourism (Key Note Restaurant, 2007). In addition,
the confident government predictions for GDP growth and low-level inflation indicate that
the demand for restaurants is likely to be sustained in coming years (British Hospitality
Association, 2007). In particular, the fast-food sector is expected to demonstrate the
strongest growth by the power of US multinationals, followed by the pubs and hotels
sector as a direct result of the smoking bans (i. e. pubs offering more food, more often) in
the future (Key Note Restaurant, 2007). Figure 2.8 represents the forecast of UK hotel
market by value at current prices from 2008 to 2011.
Figure 2.8: Forecast of UK Hotel Market by Value at Current Prices (E m), 2008-2011
(Value)
2008
2UU9
Zulu
2011
Source: Adapted from Key Note Hotel (2007, p. 55)
As Figure 2.8 presents, the UK hotel market forecast shows an increase of 8.6% between
2008 and 2011, to E 16.21bn. To some extent this will be driven by inflation, but the
potential remains for real increases in revenue. The GDP in the UK is forecast to continue
to grow year-to-year in the future. This will provide a positive environment for ongoing
investment in the hotel market. However, slowdown is likely in the growth of the hotel
market in the future. The ongoing oversupply in the hotel market will be an issue, and the
challenge to hotel groups will be to maintain revenues per available room in the face of
pressure to reduce room rates in order to increase occupancy. In addition, the UK hotel
market remains vulnerable to external factors such as economic performance and the
-25 -
ChgRter2. Literature ReviewI
JNam. 2008
possibility of further adverse international security issues(Key Note Hotel, 2005; 2006;
2007).
2.3 Summary
This chapter begins with an introduction of the unique characteristicsof the hospitality
product in contrastto manufacturedgoods.As part of the service industry, the hospitality
industry shares four characteristics with the services sector: intangibility, variability,
perishability and inseparability.Then, this chapterpresentsan overview of the hospitality
industry in the UK from the perspectiveof current trendsand future forecasts.Furthermore,
this chapteroutlines that the UK restaurantand hotel industries have been expandingand
will continue to do so for the foreseeablefuture. Since the hospitality industry is regarded
as a core constituentfor the successof the UK's economy,restaurantand hotel businesses
also play significant roles in the growth of the overall hospitality industry. Especially,
increasedcompetition in the UK restaurant and hotel sectors has led to many firms
focusing on branding strategiesto seekcompetitive advantage.Hotel and restaurantbrand
names,such as Premier Inn, KFC and Pizza Hut, now figure prominently in the UK. The
essentialreasonfor the growth of branding within the hotel and restaurantindustry is this
strategy's ability to keep customers by building brand loyalty. Hotel and restaurant
operators,now, almost universally, acceptthat the right brandscan build brand loyalty, and
the growth in the prevalence of hospitality industry branding appears set to continue
unabatedin the UK.
-26-
CHAPTER 3
Chgpter 3. Literature Review H
JNam. 2008
CHAPTER THREE
LITERATURE
REVIEW II:
THE CONCEPT OF BRAND EQUITY
3.1 Introduction
The growing emphasison building and managingbrand equity places those activities as
the primary drivers for a hospitality firm's success(Kim and Kim, 2004). Building a brand
benefits,
firm
of
possible
with a number
such as greater
with strong equity provides a
brand loyalty, less vulnerability to competitive marketing actions, larger profit margins,
potentially favorable customer reaction to price changes, increased marketing
communicationeffectiveness,and brand-extensionopportunities(Keller, 2001). Due to the
building,
brands
in
today's
to obtain a
maintaining
and
using
of
significance
marketplace
definite competitive advantage, the concept and measurement of brand equity has
interestedboth academiciansand practitioners for more than a decade,which evaluates
brand equity to a primary research interest (Kim and Kim, 2004). Within this topic,
various, clearly differentiated areas of interest have opened, resulting in highly diverse
definitions of brand equity and in a great variety of proposedmethods and approachesto
measureit (Vazquezet al., 2002).
-28-
Charter 3. Literature Review H
JNam. 2008
3.2 What is Brand?

Frequently what makes a business successfulis not a product, but a brand (Pitta and
Katsanis, 1995). For instance,most customerswould perceive a bottle of Chanel perfume
as a high quality, expensiveproduct. But the sameperfume in an unmarked bottle would
probably be viewed as lower in quality, eventhough the fragranceis identical (Kotler et al.,
2001). The notion of brand is a part of everyday life for both customersand companies.
Virtually almost all facets of daily life encounterdiverse brands (Morgan and Pritchard,
1998). Furthermore, brands provide the primary points of differentiation between
competitive offerings, and as such,they can be critical to the successof companies(Wood,
2000). Therefore, branding has attained stature as one of the most important marketing
strategiestoday (Morgan and Pritchard, 1998).
3.2.1 Product versus Brand

Before defining a brand, a brand must be distinguishedfrom a product (Baker, 2003). In
practice the term are often used interchangeably,although differences in meaning exist.
The major difference between product and brand consists of the fact that a product is
something that offers a functional benefit, while a brand is a name, symbol, design, or
mark that enhancesthe value of a product beyond its functional value (Orth et al., 2004).
Bailey and Ball (2006) also argued that a brand should be more than its physical
componentsand embody,for the purchaseror user,additional attributes,which, while they
may be intangible, can still be important considerationsto the customer.These additional
attributes distinguish a brand from a product (Jones and Slater, 2003). Aaker (1996)
supportedthis argumentby mentioning that a brand not only delivers its product attributes
but also carries various non-product related attributes such as personality, emotional
benefits and so on. Murphy (1990) maintainedthat brand is not only the actual product,
but also the unique property of a specific owner. Brand develops over time so as to
embracea set of values and attributes- both tangible and intangible - which meaningfully
differentiate
appropriately
and
products which are otherwise very similar. Figure 3.1
distinction
between
the
a product and a brand.
represents
-29-
Chapter 3. Literature Review IT
JNam. 2008
Figure 3.1: Brand is More Than Product
BRAND
/Associations
Organizational
Country
of Origin
User
Imagery
Brand
Personality
)
PRODUCT
Scope
Attributes
Quality
Uses
Self-Exprcss
Benefits
Symbols
Emotional
Benefits
Brand-Customer
Relationships
Source: Aaker (1996, p.74)

As shown in Figure 3.1, a product includescharacteristicssuch as scope,attributes,quality
and uses, while a brand includes these product characteristics and much more: brand
brand-customer
benefits,
relationships, self-express
personality, symbols, emotional
benefits, brand user imagery, country of origin and organizational associations(Aaker,
1996). Similarly, Keller (2008) suggested that a brand can have dimensions that
differentiate it in some way from other products designed to satisfy the same need.
Consequently,a brand is more than a product.
3.2.2 Definitions of Brand

Several definitions of the notion of brand populate marketing literature, yet a
comprehensivetheory of the brand construct remainsmissing (De Chernatonyand Riley,
1998). The various definitions of brand partly stem from differing philosophies such as
product-plus and holistic view, and stakeholderperspective,i.e. a brand may be defined
-30-
JNam, 2008
from the customers'perspectiveand/or from the company's perspective.Besides,brands

are sometimes defined in terms of their purpose and sometimes described by their
characteristics(Wood, 2000).
Styles and Ambler (1995) identified two philosophical approachesto define a brand. The
first is the product-plus definition which views brand as an addition to the product. The
brand is primarily an identifier. Thus, brandingwould be one of the final processesin new
product development (Ambler and Styles, 1996). In the product-plus view of
defined
(1960)
Marketing
Association
brand,
American
the
a brand as "a
understandinga
intended
design,
to identify the
them,
term,
or a combination of
name,
sign, symbol, or
goodsor servicesof one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of
brand's
logo
from
derives
definition
"
This
the
the
of
concept
and visual
competitors.
features as a basis for differentiation (De Chernatony and Riley, 1998). Although this
definition is still popular among many researchers(e.g., Watkins, 1986; Aaker, 1991;
Stantonet al., 1991; Doyle, 1994; Kotler et al. 1996), it received criticism for being too
product-orientedwith emphasison visual featuresas differentiating mechanisms(Wood,
2000).
The secondapproach is the holistic view in which the focus is the brand itself In this
holistic
just
The
defines
brand
than
product.
approach
much
more
approach,
encompasses
a brand as "the promise of the bundles of attributes that someonebuys and that provides
be
illusory,
brand
These
that
may
a
real
or
make up
rational or
satisfaction.
attributes
emotional, tangible or invisible" (Ambler and Styles, 1996, p. 10). In line with this, brand
is the sum of all elementsof the marketing mix: product is just one element, alongside
price, promotion and distribution (Wood,2000).
In particular, understandingthe absenceof a clear and comprehensivedefinition of a brand,
De Chernatonyand Riley (1996) undertook an extensiveliterature review of the concept.
Their content analysedover 100 articles from trade and academicjournals. As a result of
the content analysis of this literature, they identified 12 themes that representthe main
elementsof brand definitions. Table 3.1 showsthese12 themes.
-31-
ChgRter 3. Literature Review IT

.
JNam. 2008
Table 3.1: Themesof Brand Definitions

Descriptions
Themes
Legal Instrument
Brandingrepresentsan investmentand legal ownershipof title, as protection

againimitators.
Logo
Understandinga brandasa name,sign, symbol,or design,or a combinationof

themto differentiateonefrom another.
Company
Brandasthe corporatenamefor a firm
Shorthand
For customers,brandsact asa shorthanddevicefor identifying functionaland

of products.
emotionalcharacteristics
Risk Reducer
Brandactsasa guaranteeof consistentquality.
Identity System
Brand is a strategyanda consistent,integratedvision.
Image
Brandis a perceivedimagein customers'minds.
Value System
Customersfind value in a brand,in its heritage,in their personalexperience

with it, etc.
Personality
Brand representspsychological values by the association with human

personalitycharacteristics.
Relationship
Customersnot just perceivebrands,but also have inter-activerelationships

with them.
Adding Value
Brandprovidesno functionalbenefitsover andbeyonda product'sfunctional

characteristics.
Evolving Entity
Seeingbrandsevolvingthroughfive stagesfrom the first stageof "unbranded

"
"
"personality,
"icon"
"brand
"references,
to
the
as
and
of
stages
commodity"
"
"brand
finally
"
to
the
as
policy.
of
stage
and
company,
Source: Adapted from De Chernatonyand Riley (1998, p.426)

As can be seenfrom Table 3.1, De Chernatonyand Riley (1998) identified 12 main themes
(3)
(4)
(5)
logo,
instrument,
(2)
legal
brand
(1)
the
company,
shorthand,
risk
as a:
about
(9)
(10)
image,
identity
(8)
(7)
(6)
personality,
relationship,
system,
value
system,
reducer,
(11) adding value, and (12) evolving entity. Although some overlap exists among the
elementsof different definitions, which are therefore not mutually exclusive, the twelve
themes represent a categorization of the most important propositions in the branding
literature (De Chematony and Riley, 1998). Moreover, different themes illustrate the
from
has
been
include
brand
These
the
the
viewed.
which
concept
perspectives
various
-32-
Chgpter 3. Literature Review IT
JNam. 2008
customerperspective (e.g., brand as shorthandand a risk reducer) and that of the brand
owning company (e.g., brand as a legal instrument)(Bailey and Ball, 2006). As a result, a
brand is regardedas multi-faceted conceptwith many meaningsin the branding literature.
3.2.3 Functions of Brand

The role of brandshas recently becomea controversial issue(Baker, 2003). This situation
generatesquestions:Why are brandsimportant?What functions do they perform that make
them so valuable? (Keller, 2008). However, brands obviously fulfill many functions for
both customers and manufacturers. Figure 3.2 provides an overview of the different
functions of brandsaccordingto thesetwo parties.
Figure 3.2: FunctionsThat BrandsPlay
CONSUMERS
Identificationof sourceof product

Assignmentof responsibilityto productmaker
Risk reducer
Searchcostreducer
Promise,bond,or pactwith makerof product
Symbolicdevice
Signalof quality
MANUFACTURERS
Means of identification to simplify handling or tracing
Means of legally protecting unique features
Signal of quality level to satisfied customers
Means of endowing products with unique associations
Source of competitive advantage
Source of financial returns
Source: Keller (2008, p.7)

As shown in Figure 3.2, brandsprovide customerswith important functions in a complex
and crowded marketplace. For customers, brands effectively perform the function of
-33-
Chapter 3. Literature Review ff
JNam. 2008
identifying the source or maker of a product and allowing customers to assign

responsibility to a particular manufacturer(Keller, 2008). Brands also provide customers
with information about product quality, thereby reducing customer search cost and
perceived risk. As a result, brands work by facilitating and making more effective the
customer'sdecision (Baker, 2003).
The meaningembeddedin brandsis quite profound. The relationship betweena brand and
the customerscan be seenas a type of bond or pact (Fournier, 1998). Customersoffer their
in
behave
brand
loyalty
implicit
that
the
certain ways
trust and
will
understanding
with the
and provide them utility through consistent product quality and appropriate pricing,
promotion, distribution programs and actions. To the extent that customers realize
buy
brand,
likely
to
to
benefits
from
that
they
the
continue
are
purchasing
advantagesand
functions.
brands
fulfill
Moreover,
brand
2008).
(Keller,
status
and
prestige
specific
Customersmay seek psychological rewards for purchasing brands that symbolize status
and prestige (Cravens and Piercy, 2006). This indicates that brand's benefits may not be
devices,
functional
Brands
in
allowing customersto
merely
can serve as symbolic
nature.
project their self-images(Keller, 2008).
For manufacturers,brands can play the function of facilitation by making easier some of
the tasksthe manufacturershave to perform (Cravensand Piercy, 2006). Basically, brands
for
handling
A
identification
tracing
the
to
or
manufacturer.
simplify
serve an
purpose
brand also retains intellectual property rights, giving some legal protection to the brand
owner. The brand can be defendedthrough registeredtrademarks,patents,copyrights etc.
These intellectual property rights insure that the firm can safely invest in the brand and
(Keller,
2008).
benefits
the
asset
of a valuable
receive
In addition, a brand can endow a product with unique associationsand meanings that
differentiate it from competitive products.Brandscan also signal a certain level of quality
(Keller,
it
that
and
make
a
repeat
purchase
so
satisfied customerscan recognize quickly
2008). By creating positive associations,the firm can build a strong market sharewithout
its
firm
does
have
has
benefits
its
the
to
since
not
reduce
price
which
product
sacrificing
-34-
Chapter 3. Literature Review H
JNam, 2008
Moreover,
2006).
firms
(Fill,
this provides
in
to
profit margins order competewith other
barrier
firm
demand
for
to entry that creates
the
creates
and
predictability and security of
diff iculty for competitorsto enter the market (Aaker, 1991). As a result, for manufacturers,
brand can be seenas powerful meansto build competitive advantageand protect financial
returns.
3.3 Different Perspectives of Brand Equity

The literature illustratesthat successfulbrandsprovide customerswith a variety of benefits
that influence positively their perceptionsand subsequentbehaviour related to that brand,
(Keller,
2001).
important
intangible
be
brands
assets
company
can
and apparently,such
The view that brands can be significant company assets,which have a value to both
in
brand
has
been
brand
the
term
equity
conceptualized
customersand
owning companies,
(Bailey and Ball, 2006). Brand equity has been one of the most important marketing
conceptsin both academiaand practice, and has highlighted the importance of having a
long-term focus within brand management(Srinivasanet al., 2005).
Brand equity is perhapsbest viewed as the sum of the intangible values associatedwith a
(Francois
brand
MacLachlan,
by
identified
trademark
and
or
a
name
product or serviceand
1995). Brand equity has been describedas the addedvalue that a brand name bestowson
the product or service (Farquhar, 1989). Aaker (1991) defined brand equity as a set of
brand assetsand liabilities linked to a brand: The nameand symbol that add to or subtract
from the value provided by a product or serviceas accruing to a firm and/or to that firm's
brand
brand
hand,
(1995),
to
Blackston
the
referred
equity
as
value
other
on
customers.
brand
brand
implies
brand
brand
saliency,
associations,and
meaning
and
meaning,where
brandpersonality,and where brand value is the outcomeof managingbrand meaning.Also,
Keller (1993) defined brand equity as the differential effect of brand knowledge on a
brand
Vazquez
(2002)
described
brand.
to
the
the
et
al.
consumer'sresponse
marketing of
equity as the overall utility that the consumerassociateswith the use and consumptionof
the brand, including associationsexpressingboth functional and symbolic utilities. One
important consensusamong all these definitions is that brand equity is the incremental
-35-
JNam, 2008
value added to a product or service by a consumer's associationsand perceptions of a

particular brand name (Srivastavaand Shocker,1991).
Although a variety of perspectives can define brand equity, usually three different
perspectivesfor considering brand equity predominate: the customer-basedperspective
(the value of brand to the customer),the financial perspective(the value of brand to the
firm), and the comprehensiveperspective(the value of brand to both customerand firm)
(Kim and Kim, 2004). Table 3.2 summarizesprevious, related researchon brand equity
from customer-,financial-, and comprehensive-based
perspectives.
-36-
JNam, 2008
Table 3.2: PreviousResearchon Brand Equity

Researchers
Measurement
Concept
Customer-basedperspectives
Srivastava
(1991)
Brandstrength
andShocker
(customers'
Brandstrength
perception
andbehaviour)
+fit--brand
value(financialoutcome)
Aaker(1991;1996)
ization
Perceptual
-Brandloyalty
-Brandawareness
andbehavioural
conceptual
-Perceived
quality-Brandassociations
Kamakura
Brandvalue---tangible
Brandvalue
value+ intangible
value
andRussell(1993)
logit model on single-source
Segmentwise
scanner
paneldata
Swaitetal.(1993)
Equalization
Totalutility
pricemeasuring
Keller(1993);
Keller(2001)
Brandknowledge=brand
brandimage
Brandknowledge
awareness+
ParkandSrinivasan
Differencebetweenoverall preference
based
Brandequity=attribute
based
(1994)
+ non-attribute
and preferenceon the basis of
attributelevels
measured
objectively
Blackston
Brandrelationships
brand(personality
(1995)
Brandmeaning
model:objective
brandimage)+ subjective
brand(brand
characteristics,
attitude)
Francois
Intrinsic
brand
(1995)
MacLachlan
Brand
strength
and
strength
Extrinsicbrandstrength
Cobb-Walgrcn et al. (1995)
-Brand awareness
Lassaret al. ( 1995)
-Perceived quality -Brand associations

-Performance -Social image
Agarwal and Rao (1996)
Relationship
with brand
intentions (Aaker, 1991)
preference and
usage
Evaluate only perceptual dimensions

-Commitment -Value -Trustworthiness Discover a halo acrossdimensions of brand equity
Brand perception/brand prefercricc/brand choice
-Overall quality
paradigm
-Choice intention
Prasadand Dcv (2000)
-Brand performance
Yoo and Donthu (2001)
-Brand awareness
-Brand loyalty *Perceived quality
Johnsonet al. (2006)
-Brand awarcriess/associations
-Personality (self-concept)
Kayaman and Arasli (2007)
-Brand identification -Lifestyle

-Brand awareness -Brand loyalty
Hotel brand equity indcx--satisfaction +return intent +

value perception +brand preference+ brand awareness
Validating Aaker's conceptualization
Brand equity as a latent variable using multiple
measures
Perceptual and behavioural conceptualization
-Perceived quality -Brand image

-Brand loyalty -Perceived quality
-Brand awareness/associations
Perceptual and behavioural conceptualization
Incremental cash flows which accrueto

branded products
Brand equity--intangible assets- (nonbrand factors +

anticompetitive industry structure)
Farquhar (1989)
Added value with which a given brand
Respective
Dyson et al. (1996)
endows a product
*Brand loyalty -Brand attitude
Motameni and Shahrokhi (1998)
Global Brand Equity (GBE)
consumer's perspective
Consumer value model: proportion of expenditure x
weight of consumption
Brand strength (customer, competitive, global potency)
X brand net earnings
Kim et al. (2008)

Financial
Perspectives
Simon and Sullivan (1993)

Comprehensive
perspectives
Source: Adapted from Kim and Kim (2005, p.553)
-37-
evaluation
on
firm's,
trade's,
and
Chapter 3. Literature Review U
JNam. 2008
Brand equity may be viewed in the context of marketing decision-making.This concerns

how consumersperceive product or service brands. The premise of the customer-based
perspectiveis that the power of a brand lies in what customershave learned,felt, seen,and
heard about the brand, over time. That is, the power of a brand is in what residesin the
minds of customers(Keller, 2001). Thus, conceptualization of brand equity is from the
perspectiveof the individual consumer,and customer-basedbrand equity occurs when the
consumeris familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand
associationsin memory (Kamakura and Russell, 1991).The advantageof conceptualizing
brand equity from customer-basedperspectiveis that it enables marketing managersto
considerhow their marketing programs improve the value of their brands in the minds of
for
branding
foster
(Keller,
1993).
As
a
result,
effective
programs
consumers
marketing
greater confidence in consumers.This confidence induces consumers' loyalties and their
for
brand
(Kim and Kim, 2005).
the
to
price
willingness pay a premium
The basis for the financial Perspectiveis the incrementaldiscountedfuture cash flows that
result from a brandedproduct's excessrevenuecomparedto the revenue of an unbranded
product (Simon and Sullivan, 1993).The assetrepresentingthe brand is a componentof the
firm's assetson the balancesheet(Kim et al., 2003). Simon and Sullivan (1993) presenteda
financial market value basedtechniquefor estimatinga firm's brand equity. The stock, used
brand
basis,
the
the
equities (Motameni and Shahrokhi, 1998).Based
as a
evaluates value of
on the financial market's valuation of the company,this estimation technique extractsthe
value of brand equity from the value of a firm's other assets.The methodology separatesthe
value of a firm's securitiesinto tangible and intangible assetsand then extractsbrand equity
from other intangible assets(Kim and Kim, 2004).
Last, the comprehensiveperspectives incorporate both customer-basedbrand equity and
financial brand equity. This approachappearsto compensatefor the insufficienciesthat may
exist when emphasizingonly one of the two individual equities. For example,Dyson et al.
(1996) describeda survey researchsystemdesignedto place a financially related value on
the consumer-basedequity of brand images and associations.Motameni and Shahrokhi
(1998) suggestedglobal brand equity valuations, which combine brand equity from the
-38-
Chgpter 3. Literature Review H
JNam. 2008
marketingperspectiveand brand equity from the financial perspective.
3.4 Components of Brand Equity

Many researched contexts consider brand equity: personality (self-concept), brand
identification, and lifestyle (Johnson et al., 2006); brand loyalty, brand awareness,
perceived quality, brand associations,and other proprietary brand assets(Aaker, 1991);
brand awarenessand brand image (Keller, 1993); brand loyalty, perceived quality, and
brand awareness/associations
(Yoo and Donthu, 2001); incremental utility (Simon and
Sullivan, 1993); performance, social image, commitment, value, and trustworthiness
(Lassaret al., 1995); brand performanceand brand awareness(Prasadand Dev, 2000); and
overall quality and choice intention (Agarwal and Rao, 1996)(SeeTable 3.2).
Within marketing literature, operationalizationsof customer-basedbrand equity fall into
two groups:consumerperception and consumerbehaviour(Cobb-Walgrenet al., 1995;Yoo
and Donthu, 2001). Aaker (1991,1996) incorporated both perceptual and behavioural
dimensions.The four dimensionsof brand equity: brand loyalty, brand awareness,perceived
quality, and brand image, suggestedby Aaker (1991,1996), have broad acceptanceand
employment by many researchers(e.g., Motameni and Shahrokhi, 1998; Low and Lamb,
2000; Prasadand Dev, 2000; Ybo and Donthu, 2001; Kayamanand Arasli, 2007; Kim et al.,
2008). However, brand equity has operationalization by Lassar et al. (1995) as an
enhancementof the perceivedutility and desirability that a brand name confers on a product
or service. According to researchof Lassar et al. (1995), brand equity consists of only
perceptual dimensions, excluding behavioural dimensions, such as brand loyalty, which
differs from Aaker's (1991,1996) incorporateddimension(Kim et al., 2003). Johnsonet al.
(2006) also only usedthe perceptualdimension.The brand equity measuresof Johnsonet al.
(2006) included whether or not the brand reflects customers'personallifestyles, whether or
not the brand fits their personalities (self-concept),and brand identification. Lassar et al.
(1995) and Johnsonet al. (2006) strictly distinguishedthe perceptual dimensionsfrom the
behavioural dimensions so that behaviour is a consequenceof brand equity rather than
brand equity itself. Furthermore, Keller (2008) proposed that behavioural dimensions
-39-
JNam. 2008
in
habit
buying
be
be
brand
because
from
the
of
a
may
consumers
should excluded
equity
focuses
The
brand
thinking
research
on a
present
particular
much about why.
without really
customer-basedperspective and mainly adopts the components of brand equity from
Johnsonet al. (2006) measures.Moreover, perceivedquality is included as a componentof
brand equity becauseprevious researchersidentified perceived quality as one of the key
componentsof brand equity. Finally, this researchconsidersonly consumerperceptionas a
component of brand equity, including self-concept, brand identification, lifestyle and
brand
behaviour
be
judging
to
thereby
of
equity. In the
a consequence
perceived quality,
following section, four components of brand equity: self-concept, brand identification,
lifestyle and perceivedquality, are reviewed in detail.
3.4.1 Self-Concept
Self-conceptcan be a view of the totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings having
is
1979).
Self-concept
(Rosenberg,
the
thought
to
the
an
object
of
person as
reference
individual's perception of personal abilities, limitations, appearanceand characteristics,
including one's own personality (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987; 1994). Literature, considering
in
has
increased
30
(Sirgy
for
the
past
years
et
significantly
self-concept consumerresearch,
al., 2000). The bulk of the research on self-concept attempted to explain consumer
behaviour in terms of congruenceof brands or products with the consumer's self-concept
(Malhotra, 1987). The degreeof congruencebetweenconsumer's self concept (self-image)
brand
brand's
image
have
consumers'
evaluations,preferences
effects
on
can
significant
and
and purchaseintentions or motivations (Graeff, 1996).
3.4.1.1 Dimensions of Self-Concept

Earlier studiesconceptualizedself-conceptas a unidimensional construct measuringactual
self-concept. A number of investigators discussedself-concept as a single variable and
treated it as the actual self-conceptwhich refers to the entire way in which the individual
seesthe self in terms of self-evaluationsand self-description(e.g., Birdwell, 1968; Greenet
-40-
Chgpter 3. Literature Review ff
JNam. 2008
dual
In
1976).
1969;
Grubb
Stem,
1971;
Bellenger
the
self-constructs
al.,
et al.,
and
tradition, self-concept had conceptualization as having more than one component. Some
investigators argued that treatment of self-concept must include two components- the
actual self-conceptand the ideal self-concept(e.g., Dolich, 1969; Delozier, 1971; Delozier
andTillman, 1972;Belch and Landon, 1977;Belch, 1978).
Other investigatorswent beyond the dimensional duality. Generally, consumerresearchers
behaviour
(Sirgy
in
four
consumers'
used
aspectsof self-concept explaining and predicting
based
four
described
Su,
2000).
Sirgy
(1982)
on the individual's
aspectsof self-concept
and
perspective:namely, actual self-concept, social self-concept, ideal self-concept, and ideal
is
how
Actual
a personperceivesthe self, whereas,social
social self-concept.
self-concept
self-concept is how others see the individual. For example, a person may have a selfindividual
being
friendly
the
and
modem;
whereas
others
may
perceive
very
perceptionof
as being as moderately friendly and somewhat traditional. Ideal self-concept is how a
be
best;
ideal
how
like
to
the
at
whereas
social
self-concept
as
self-perception
would
person
the individual would like to be perceived by others at best. Generally, an individual
it
ideal
to an actual selfas
a
and
compares
reference
point
an
self-concept
establishes
individual
ideal
between
A
the
to strive
the
stimulates
actual
and
self-concepts
gap
concept.
for the ideal state(Hong and Zinkhan, 1995).
3.4.1.2Theory of Self-Concept Congruence

In today's highly competitive businessenvironment,a well positioned brand image is very
important (Arnold, 1992). Marketers strive to create a brand images that are similar to
(congruentwith) the self-conceptsof the targetcustomers(Kapferer, 1992;Aaker and Biehl,
1993). Numerous studies have shown that one's self-concept affects purchase decisions,
with research into the theory generally indicating that consumers have more favorable
attitudes toward and are more likely to consummatepurchasesof products and brands
perceived consistent with their own self-concepts(e.g., Sirgy, 1982; Onkvisit and Shaw,
1987;Malhotra, 1988; Graeff, 1996;Litvin and Goh, 2002).
-41-
Chgpter 3. Literature Review ff
JNam. 2008
Self-concept theory is the most relevant for marketers because it focuses on how an
individual's self-concept affects purchasingbehaviour. It recognizesthat what people buy
and own is a reflection of whom thesepeople are (Assael, 1998).According to self-concept
theory,people act in ways that maintain and enhancetheir self-concepts.One important way
people maintain and enhancetheir self-conceptsis through the products or brands they
purchase and use. Accordingly, a consumer's self-concept (self-image) is defined,
maintained, and enhanced through the products or brands they purchase and use.
Consumersachieve self-consistencyby holding positive attitudes toward, and purchasing
brandsthat are perceived to be similar to their self-concepts.The self-conceptcongruence
hypothesis statesthat consumersshould have favorable attitudes and purchase intentions
towards brands perceived to be congruent with their self-concepts.The more similar a
brand's
image,
favorable
is
the evaluation of that
to
the
the
consumer'sself-concept
more
brand should be (Graeff, 1996). This relationship between self-concept congruence
(between brand image and self-concept) and consumers' brand evaluations appears in
Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Self-ConceptCongruenceHypothesis

Positivebrandevaluation
Brand image
Self-Concept(image)
Self-Concept (image)
Brandimage
Brand image
Self-concept (image)
Brandimage
Self-concept (image)
Negativebrandevaluation
Source: Graeff (1996, p.6)
Two principles govern self-concept theory: the desire to attain self-consistencyand the
desire to enhance one's self-esteem (Assael, 1998). Buying products or brands that
-42-
Chqpter 3. Literature Review H
JNam. 2008
consumers perceive to be similar to their self-concepts achieves self-consistency.

Consumers choose products or brands because of the perceived consistency with the
consumers'actual self-concepts,while other purchaseshelp reach the standardset by the
ideal self-concept.That is, congruenceoccurs betweenproduct or brand and self-concept
(Solomon et al., 2002). The ideal self-conceptrelates to one's self-esteem.People tend to
seethemselvesby how other people cometo know and expectthem to be. Self-esteemis the
extent to which people approve of and acceptthemselves,and their feelings of self-respect
(Mullins, 1996). The greater the difference betweenthe actual self-conceptand ideal selfconcept,the lower an individual's self-esteem.Consumers'dissatisfactionwith themselves
could influence buying, particularly thoseproductsor brandsthat could enhanceself-esteem.
Such actions would enhancetheir self-esteemby drawing them closer to their ideal selfconcept(Assael, 1998).
The desire for both self-consistencyand self-esteemcould conflict. Consumerswho buy in
accordancewith their actual self-concept may be achieving consistency but may not be
enhancingself-esteem.Generally, consumersbuy products or brands that conform to their
actual self-concepts.But if they have low self-esteem(that is, the presence of greater
disparity betweenthe actual and ideal self-concepts),they are more likely to buy basedon
(Assael,
like
be
1998). Buying to achieve
than
they
to
they
on
what
are
what
would
rather
lead
to compulsive purchasing behaviour. Frequent
can
an unrealizable self-concept
purchasing is a means of overcoming the discrepancy between the real and ideal selfconceptand relieving a senseof low self-esteem(Hanley and Wilhelm, 1992).
Sirgy (1982) conducted an extensive review of the literature and research of the selfinteracts
(image)
A
theory.
concept
specific value-laden self-concept
with a corresponding
value-laden product or brand image perception, and the result occurs in the following
forms: positive self-congruence(comparisonbetweena positive self-conceptand a positive
product or brand image), positive self-incongruence(comparison between a negative selfconcept and a positive product or brand image), negative self-congruence(comparison
betweena negative self-conceptand a negativeproduct or brand image), and negativeselfincongruence(comparisonbetweena positive self-conceptand a negative product or brand
-43-
JNam. 2008
image). Table 3.3 shows that the different self-concept/productor brand image congruence
statesinfluence purchasemotivation differently.
Table 3.3: Effects of Self-Esteemand Self-ConsistencyMotives on Purchase
MotivatiorAntention
Mediating Factors
Self-Concept & Product/Brand Result Self-image/
(image)
in
Product-image
Image
con=_ ence
Self-esteem Self-consistency
Motivation
motivation
Purchase
Motivation
Leadin g to
positive
positive
positive selfcongruence
approach
approach
approachpurchase
motivation
negative
positive
positive selfincongruence
approach
avoidance
conflict
negative
negative
negative selfcongruence
avoidance +
approach
conflict
positive
negative
negative selfincongruence
avoidance +
avoidance
avoidance purchase
motivation
Source: Adapted from Sirgy (1982, p.290)

As shown in Table 3.3, positive self-congruencedeterminesthe strongestlevel of purchase
motivation, followed by positive self-incongruence,negative self-congruence,and negative
self-incongruence,respectively. In a positive self-congruence state, the customer feels
highly motivated toward purchasing the product, mainly due to its self-esteemand selfconsistencyeffects.The customerexpectsto increaseself-esteemby purchasingthe product.
In the positive self-incongruenceand the negativeself-congruencestates,the consumermay
experience a conflict between self-esteem and self-consistency. In the negative selfincongruencecondition, the customer has a negative attitude toward the product and will
not purchase the product because it does not satisfy self-esteem and self-consistency
motivations. Therefore, the resultant motivational state toward a given product is the net
effect of the motivational statearising from needfor self-esteemand self-consistency(Sirgy,
1982).
-44-
ChgRter 3. Literature Review ff

.
JNam. 2008
3.4.1.3Measurements of Self-Concept Congruence

Different methods of measuring self-concept congruencehave had wide testing among
many researchers (Back, 2005). However, two methods of measuring self-concept
congruenceare primary. The traditional method of measuringself-conceptcongruencehas
its basis in tapping the respondent'sperceptionof a product-concept(e.g., restaurant,hotel,
retail shop) and the respondent'sperception of self-concept in relation to the productconcept.Then, a discrepancywith each image dimension is mathematically computed,and
the discrepancyscores are summed across all dimensions (Sirgy and Su, 2000). Indeed,
most studiesin consumerself-conceptresearchmeasuredself-conceptcongruenceby using
some kind of mathematicaldiscrepancyindex betweencustomer self-conceptand productconcept(Sirgy et al., 1997).
Although the traditional method for measuringself-conceptcongruencehas most common
employment,it has received a number of criticisms (Peter et al., 1993). Sirgy et al. (1997)
identified methodological problems inherent in the discrepancy score measure of selfconceptcongruence.First is a problem with the use of the discrepancyscorewhich resulted
in inflated reliability scores, systematic correlations with their components, spurious
correlations with other variables, questionableconstruct validity, and restricted variance
(Sirgy et al., 1997). Second, the use of predetermined images forces an indication of
images
that respondentsmay or may not associatewith
congruenceor incongruencewith
the product (Back, 2005). By having irrelevant image dimensions, the self-concept
congruencescore may have random errors in measurement(Chon, 1990). Theseproblems
relate, in part, to the assumption that self-concept congruence is a multidimensional,
piecemealprocess(Sirgy and Su, 2000).
After the analysisof the shortcomingsof the traditional method, Sirgy et al. (1997) designed
a new method to measureself-concept congruence.They argued that this revised method
doesnot cue respondentsto a specific image dimension.This new method cuesrespondents
to conjure their own self-conceptand guidesthem to indicate their global perceptionof the
degreeof match or mismatch between self-conceptand product concept. In other words,
-45-
JNam. 2008
this measurementprocedure captures self-conceptcongruencedirectly (not by measuring

product concept separately) and globally (not by asking respondentsto indicate their
perception of self-concept congruencewith predetermined images) (Sirgy et al., 1997).
Figure 3.4 showsthe different methodsof measuringself-conceptcongruence.
Figure 3.4: Different Methodsof Measuring Self-ConceptCongruence
Global
Measures
Direct
Measures
Indirect
Measures
Dimension-based
Measures
Problem-free
Problem:
useof discrepancyscores
Problem:
useof predetermined
images
Problem:
useof discrepancyscores
andpredeterminedimages
Source: Sirgy et al. (1997, p.232)

As shown in Figure 3.4, the new method assumesthat self-conceptcongruenceis processed
indirectly
directly,
dimensional-based
as the traditional method assumed.
or
and
not
globally
In comparing the predictive validity of the new method with that of the traditional method,
the new method appeared to be more predictive of various consumer behaviours and
attitudes across six different studies. These findings were consistent across a variety of
goods and services, across different consumer populations, and across different
consumption settings (Sirgy and Su, 2000). After consideration of the Sirgy et al. (1997)
and Sirgy and Su's (2000) research,a new method to measure self-concept congruence
directly and globally is the choice for the presentresearch.
3.4.2 Brand Identification

Many people are likely to express themselvesand/or enhance themselves by selecting
particular brands.The degreeto which the brand expressesand enhancestheir identities is
-46-
JNam. 2008
determinedby their levels of brand identification (Kim et al., 2001a). Brand identification
has its basis in the brand's ability to act as a communication instrument allowing the
consumerto manifest the desireto integrateor, on the contrary,to dissociatewith the groups
of individuals who constitute the closest social circle. Consumerspositively value those
brandsthat enjoy a good reputation among the groups to which they belong or aspire to
belong (Long and Shiffman, 2000). A consumer'sidentification with a certain brand makes
that consumerdifferentiate the brand from others(Kim et al., 2001a).
3.4.2.1 Social Identification Theory

Any possible link between customer and brand is the result of an investigation occurring
through social identification theory developed in social psychology (Kim et al., 2001a).
People use various factors to classify themselvesas belonging to a specific group. This
is
being
in
life,
commonly termed: social
as
rooted
social
widely
accepted
phenomenon,
identification. In social psychology, social identification means that a person adopts an
identity as a member of a society. Social identification implies that an individual perceives
helps
define
is
important
in
(Mael
that
the
to
the
association
what
and
group
membership
between
1992).
In
Ashforth,
the
the
the group and its
stronger
relationship
general,
and
members,the greater the willingness of individual membersto engage in behavioursthat
support the group. This effect, a psychological orientation of the self such that individuals
define themselvesin terms of their group membership,appearedin a variety of studieson
identification (Fisher and Wakefield, 1998). When a person identifies with group, a
perceivedsenseof connectednessto the group arisesand defines the individual in terrns of
the group. Here, a group includes a referencegroup; it includes not only a group to which
peoplebelong but also a group to which they aspireto belong (13hattacharya
et al., 1995).
Social identification theory has wide use in social psychology and has application mainly
for organizationalidentification (Kim et al., 2001a). An expressionof identification with an
organization is a special type of social identification (e.g., Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Lau,
1989; Mael and Ashfoteh, 1992; Bhattacharya et al., 1995). Studies of organizational
identification divide into two types: First is a group of studies on the antecedentsof
-47-
Chgj2ter 3. Literature Review ff
JNam, 2008
organizational identification. Such studies examined considerationssuch as the degreeof

competition with other organizations,satisfactionlevel, organizationalprestige,tenure, and
contact frequency (Kim et al., 2001a). Second is a group of studies on the effect of
organizationalidentification. Organizationalresearchersconsistently demonstratedthat the
identification of members,such as employeesor alumni, leadsto increasedmemberloyalty
to the organization(Adler and Adler, 1987)and decreasedturnover (O'Reilly and Chatman,
1986). For example, Mael and Ashforth (1992) found that alumni who identified more
strongly with their alma maters donated more money and participated more frequently.
Dutton et al. (1994) argued that a positive relationship exists between identification and
has
identification
(1990)
Shamir
that
a positive effect on the
proposed
group cooperation.
willingness to contribute to collective work. However, all these studies investigated
brand
identification
identification,
(Kim et al., 2001a).
organizational
not
3.4.2.2 Social Identification Processes

Social identification is a universal human process,which occurs acrossthe whole human
spectrum.Apparently, a fundamentalpart of being human is that people perceive others as
being either "us" or "them." The psychologicalprocessof identifying with social groups is
a fundamental adaptive mechanism, used by all human beings. Three psychological
mechanisms operate in the process of social identification: categorization, social
comparison,and the needfor positive self-esteem(Hayes, 1998).
Categorization
Categorizationis a cognitive mechanism.Peoplegenerally divide the social world into two
distinct categories:us and them, referred to as social categorization. In short, they view
other persons as belonging to either their own group (usually termed the in-group) or
another group (the out-group). Such distinctions have their bases in many dimensions,
including race, religion, sex, age, ethnic background, occupation, and so on (Baron and
Byrne, 2002). Young people, children, mothers, football supporters, Europeans, Volvo
drivers, golfers, doctors,eco-freaks:theseare all social categories,and representonly a very
few of the many possible ones. Moreover, any one person can belong to a number of
-48-
ChgRter3. Literature Review ff
JNam. 2008
different social categories:the samepersonmight be a mother,a European,a Volvo driver, a

golfer, and a doctor. Social categoriescan complement one another such as children and
mothers;they can overlap, or they might have no connectionat all with one another(Hayes,
1998).
Social Comparison
Social comparisonis more evaluative than categorizing.It concernscomparing one group
with another. Social groups differ from one another in power and status, and those
differences are tremendously important, and thus, indicate the third mechanismof social
identification: the human tendencyto seek positive sourcesfor self-esteem(Hayes, 1998).
Social identification rests on intergroup social comparisons that seek to Confirm or to
establishan in-group, favoring evaluative distinctivenessbetween in-group and out-group.
The motivation is from an underlying needfor self-esteem(Hogg and Terry, 2000).
Self-Esteem
Self-esteemis a motivational mechanism.Peopleneedto feel good about themselves,and
people are highly motivated to obtain respectfrom other people. So the social statusof a
in
factor
identification:
is
important
become
social
group
an
people
can
particular
angry or
defensive if someonecriticizes a group to which the individual belongs, becauserespect
for the group matters(Hayes, 1998).Sometimes,of course,people do not identify with the
social group to which others belong. Instead,people try to separatethemselvesfrom other
members of the group, or leave the group and join some other social group, instead.
Whether people actually identify with the group to which they belong dependson what
membership has to offer. According to TaJfel and Turner (1979), people will come to
identify with their social group if it provides a sourceof positive self-esteem.Belonging to
a group must provide some reason for pride in membership.If pride of membership is
absent,leaving the group becomesan option, or, if extrication is impossible, distancing
becomesan alternative (Hayes, 1998).
-49-
JNam. 2008
3.4.2.3 Consequencesof Social Identification

The consequencesof social identification have had thorough study by organizational
1992;
Mael
Ashforth,
1986;
Chatman,
(e.
O'Reilly
and
and
researchersas noted earlier g.,
Dutton et al., 1994). Understandingthe basesfor strong relationshipsbetween individuals
and their groups is of fundamental interest to consumer researchersand marketers.
Companies, charities, educational institutions, religious organizations, sports teams,
musical bands,and special interest groups dependon the support of customers,members,
fans, and patrons in order to survive and prosper(Fisher and Wakefield, 1998).Numerous
high
brand
loyalty,
leads
in
to
identification
the
that
also
customer arena
studies showed
Peter
and
recommendations.
word-of-mouth
positive
repeat customer purchases, and
Olson (1993) noted that 94% of Harley-Davidson buyers would again buy a HarleyDavidson, and according to Aaker (1994), 95% of Saturn buyers said they would
found
Other
to
the
ethnic or racial
research
others.
car and retailer
recommend
identification to be an important factor affecting a variety of consumptionbehaviours(e.g.,
Deshpandeet al., 1986; Williams and Qualls, 1989; Stayman and Deshpande, 1989;
Webster,1994).
Becauseidentification provides important insights into individuals' willingness to support

identification.
behaviours,
their
through
companies
always
seek
many
consumption
groups
Customerswho identify with a specific brand usually remain loyal to all the brand's
do
identify
brand,
loyal
the
not
are
customers,who
with
products and/or services,while
loyal only to the particular product and/or servicethey like (Fisher and Wakefield, 1998).
Thus, companieswant to acquire brand loyalty and repeatsalesby building an underlying
theme or program that enablesconsumersto identify with the brand. Some companiesdo
this by sponsoringworthy causes/charitiesor developingpolicies that createdifferentiation
from competitors. Other companies use direct strategiesto develop brand identification
lead
identification
brand
Because
to a
their
with
a
can
consumers.
customer
among
brand
loyalty,
such
repeatpurchase,and positive word-of-mouth
as
competitive advantage
identification
that
the
suggested
customer
recommendations,many marketing researchers
with brand should be a topic for investigation(Ferreira, 1996).
-50-
Chapter3. LiteratureReviewff
JNam.2008
3.4.3 Lifestyle
Surprisingly despite the notable level of lifestyle marketing activity, the literature on the
topic is scant (Helman and Chernatony, 1999). O'Shaughnessy(1987) took the view that
consumerbuying follows an overall consumptionsystemor lifestyle; that an aspiration for
the good life generatesgoals, some of which result in demand for specific brands that
contribute to the desired lifestyle. Consumersdevelop repeatbuying patterns becausethey
learn that particular brands are especially satisfying, or they come to form personal
attachmentsto the brands. This may occur becausethe brand fits well into a particular
lifestyle (Foxall et al., 1998). Thus, perhaps customer use of a brand is a means of
improving lifestyle (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987). However, the marketing studies focused
(lifestyle
lifestyle
technique
analysis)
as
a
segmentation
more on
variable and a research
rather than in the broader and more illuminating senseO'Shaughnessyused (Helman and
Chernatony,1999).
3.4.3.1Brand as Reflection of Lifestyle

Lifestyle, in its widest sense,coversnot only demographiccharacteristics,but also attitudes
toward life, beliefs and aspirations(Brassingtonand Pettitt, 2003). Although no commonly
for
in
definition
lifestyle
the
term
exists
all
refers,
general, to a
accepted
of
marketers,
person's unique patterns of living as expressedby individual activities, interests and
opinions, all of which characterize differences among consumers. Consumers' lifestyles
reflect the patternsof time, spendingand feelings that constitute the reality of much of how
life unfolds: what consumersthink is important and interesting, how they spendtheir time
and money, and how they view themselvesand the world (Foxall et al., 1998; Solomon,
2002).Table 3.4 showsthe dimensionsthat define lifestyle.
-51-
JNam, 2008
Chgj2ter3. Literature Review IT
Table 3.4: Lifestyle Dimension

Activities
Interests
Opinion
Demographics
Work
Family
Themselves
Age
Hobbies
Home
Social issues
Education
Socialevents
Job
Politics
Income
Vacation
Community
Business
Occupation
Entertainment
Recreation
Economics
Family size
Club membership
Fashion
Education
Dwelling
Community
Food
Products
Geography
Shopping
Media
Future
Sports
Achievements
Culture
City size
Stagein life-cycle
Source: Adapted from Blackwell et al. (2006. p.279)

Solomon (2002) suggestedthat lifestyle consists of shared values or tastes, particularly
thosereflectedin consumptionpatterns.He linked person,brandand settingsto express

lifestyle. The lifestyle brand comeswith a social situation.Peoplebuy things that are
associated
with a lifestyle. Solomon(2002)believedthat lifestyle is not simply allocating
time andmoney,but rather,embracingthe symbolicnuancesthat differentiategroups.Thus
people,brand,and settingscombineto expressa certainlifestyle, as diagramedin Figure
3.5.
Figure 3.5: Linkage Brandsto Lifestyles
PERSON /
BRAND
LIFESTYLE
SETTING
Source: Adapted from Solomon (2002, p.211)
-52-
JNam. 2008
Customerschoosebrandsthat help define a unique lifestyle becausebrandsassociatewith a

certain lifestyle. The adoption of a lifestyle marketing perspective implies that marketers
must look at patternsof behaviourto understandconsumers.Marketers can obtain a clearer
how
by
how
brands
define
lifestyles
they make choices
to
examining
picture of
people use
lifestyle
important
brand
Therefore,
of
part
marketing is to
amonga variety of
categories.
an
identify the set of brandsthat seemto link the consumers'minds to a specific lifestyle, and
then, attemptto position a brand by fitting it to the identified lifestyle (Solomon, 2002).
3.4.4PerceivedQuality
The perceivedquality of a product or service is central to the theory that strong brandsadd
2000).
Aaker
(1996)
Lamb,
(Low
to
and
consumers'
purchase
evaluations
and
value
Zeithaml (1988) identified perceived quality as one of the key dimensions in usual
associations with brand equity. Perceived quality is usually customers' perception or
subjectivejudgment about a product's overall excellenceor superiority (Zeithaml, 1988;
Aaker and Jacobson, 1994). Personal product or service experiences,unique needs,and
judgment
influence
the
subjective
consumer's
of quality
situations
may
consumption
(Palmer, 2005). High perceived quality means that, through the long-term experience
brand.
differentiation
brand,
the
the
the
to
superiority
recognize
and
of
consumers
related
Perceivedhigh quality drives a consumerto choosethe brand rather than to other competing
brands. Thus, the degree of perceived quality drives brand equity increases(Yoo et al.,
2000).
3.4.4.1Perceived Quality in the Context of Service

Perceivedquality is an elusive and indistinct construct. Consumersexpect quality today
more than ever before (Bamert and Wehrli, 2005). For companiesoffering good quality, the
result often meansdifferentiation from competitors.In other words, quality is an accepted
competitive weapon (Parasuramanet al., 1985). The importance of perceived quality to
businessperformance has been establishedboth in a service context (e.g., Bowen and
-53-
JNam. 2008
Chgpter 3. Literature Review
Shoemaker,1998;Pizam and Ellis, 1999)and in broaderbusinesscontexts (e.g., Zeithaml et

al., 1996;Bloemer et al., 1999).Especially,delivering perceived,high quality is an essential
strategyfor successand survival in today's competitive serviceenvironmentcontexts(Saleh
and Ryan, 1991).
Generally,attempts at defining quality have largely come from the manufacturing sector.
However,knowledge about product quality is insufficient for understandingservice quality.
Perceivedquality in the context of service is different from product quality becauseof the
unique characteristics of service such as intangibility, variability, perishability and
inseparability (Walker, 1995). Figure 3.6 showsthe goods and servicescontinuum ranging
from tangible to intangible.
Figure 3.6: Goodsand ServiceContinuum
Most goods
Easyto
evaluate
Most services
I Difficult to
Intangible elements
evaluate
Tangible elements
CD
#-4
oil
00
E
CrQ
ij
High in
search
quality
Hig in
experience
quality
00.
Hi&h in
creCence
quality
Source: Walker (1995, p.6)

As shown in the Figure 3.6, most services are high in experience and credencequality,
while goods are high in search quality. Search qualities are those that a consumer can
evaluateprior to purchasing;experiencequalities are those that can be evaluatedonly after
purchaseor during use, and credencequalities are those that consumershave difficulty
-54-
JNam. 2008
evaluatingeven after purchaseand consumption.Becausemost servicesprimarily contain

difficult
is
to evaluatethan product
experienceand credencequalities, service quality more
quality (Walker, 1995).
3.4.4.1.1Conceptualization of ServiceQuality
For a long time, service quality has been a subject of interest in business management
(Martinez Caro and Martinez Garcia, 2007). Especially,interest in measurementof service
is
levels
higher
high
delivery
is
the
of
service
quality
and
of
understandably
quality
increasinglyoffered strategyas key to serviceproviders' efforts to position themselvesmore
effectively in the marketplace(Cronin and Taylor, 1992). However, unlike product quality,
durability
by
indicators,
be
tangible
as
and numberof
such
measured
objectively
which can
defects (Crosby, 1979; Garvin, 1983), service quality is an abstract and elusive construct
becauseof its inherent characteristicsthat are difficult to measure(Parasuramanet aL, 1985;
1988).Kurtz and Clow (1998) also arguedthat servicequality is more difflicult to evaluate
than product quality.
Given the complex nature of service quality, unsurprisingly divergent views exist for the
bestway to conceptualizeand measureit (Palmer,2005). Although the literature on service
izi
for
lack
or
operational
ng perceived
conceptualizing
of consensus
quality suggesteda
different
1994),
1992;
Taylor,
Rust
Oliver,
(Cronin
two
generally,
and
and
service quality
issue:
disconfirmation
been
have
this
and performance-only
regarding
adopted
perspectives
approaches(Martinez Caro and Martinez Garcia,2007).
The first perspective suggests that perceived service quality has its basis in the
disconfirmation paradigm. Service quality is a comparison between consumers'
expectationsand their perceptions of the service actually received (Martinez Caro and
Martinez Garcia, 2007). Using the disconfirmation paradigm has merit, because the
measurementof expectationsand perceptionsseparatelyprovides managersor practitioners
with better understandingof the dynamics of customers' assessmentsof service quality,
over time. This permits quality evaluators,during a prescribed time period, to have close
-55-
JNam. 2008
control over the changing patterns of both expectationsand perceptionsof service quality
(Parasuraman
et al., 1993).
According to this approach, Gronroos (1984) developedthe Nordic model. This model
contendedthat perceivedquality is essentiallya function of expectedservice and perceived
by
Nordic
developed
3.7
Figure
(Madanoglu,
2004).
the
model
shows
performance
Gronroos(1984).
Figure 3.7: Gronroos'sNoridic Model

>
Expected
Service
<
Traditionalmarketing
activities
(advertising,personal
selling,PR,pricing),
Externalinfluenceby
traditions,ideology,and
word-of-mouth
recommendation
PerceivedServiceQuality
10
Perceived
Service
Image
Technical
Quality
Functional
Quality
What?
How?
Source: Gronroos(1984, p.40)

As shown in Figure 3.7, Gronroos (1984) identified two dimensionsin service quality. The
first dimension is technical quality that refers to the outcome of the service performance;
the second dimension is functional quality that refers to the subjective perception of
delivery of the service. These two dimensionsinfluence the image of the service provider.
This imageis important to most types of servicesbecauseit can affect the perceivedservice
quality in various ways; it can be thought of as a filter of perceived quality. This model
-56-
JNam. 2008
conceivesservice quality as the mixture of service delivery activities, service itself, and
image, and emphasizesthe comparison between expectedservice and perceived service
when estimatingthe standardfor service quality. Perceivedservice quality is not a straight
sum of technical and functional quality; rather, in this model, it concerns the differences
betweenexpectedand perceivedservicequality (Gronroos,1990).
Moreover,basedon the disconfirmation paradigm,Parasuramanet al. (1988) developedthe
SERVQUAL scale, in which service quality is the result obtained from completing a
comparisonbetweenexpectationsand perceptionsof performance.The SERVQUAL scale
is basedon the so-calledgap model of servicequality. The central idea in this model is that
service quality is a function of the different scores or gaps between expectations and
perceptions(Parasuramanet al., 1985).Figure 3.8 showsthe gapsmodel for servicequality.
-57-
Chgpler 3. Literature Review
JNam, 2008
Figure 3.8: GapsModel of ServiceQuality
Word-of-Mouth
Past Experience
Personal Needs
Communications
Expected Service
...............
GAP 5
Consumer
Perceived Service
.......................
..............................
Marketer
I ........................................................
ServiceDelivery
I GAP 4
(Including Pre-and
Post-contacts)
I ....................
External
Communicationsto
Customers
GAP 3
V
Translation of
Perceptions into
Service Quality Specs
GAP 1
GAP 2
V
Management
.............
Perceptions of
ConsumerExpectations
Source: Parasuramanet al. (1985, p.44)

The gaps model of service quality identifies or explains the causes of service quality
helps
find
for
dissatisfaction.
The
model
quality
possible sources
problems and customer
problemsthrough the identification of five possible discrepanciesamong the componentsof
the basic structure, called quality gaps (Ingram and Daskalakis, 1999). According to
Parasuramanet al. (1985), the causesof these five quality gaps are inconsistenciesin the
-58-
Chapter 3. Literature Review
J Nam, 2008
Figure 3.8: Gaps Model of Service Quality
Word-of-Mouth
Past Experience
Personal Needs
Communications
Expected Service
GAP 5
Consumer I
Perceived Service
...........
...................................................
Marketer
I ........................................................
Service Delivery
(Including Pre-and
Post-contacts)
GAP 4
................
I ....................
External
Communications to
Customers
GAP 3
Translation
of
Perceptions into
Service Quality
Specs
GAP I
GAP 2
v
Management
............
Perceptionsof
ConsumerExpectations
Source: Parasuraman et al. (1985, p.44)
The gaps model of service quality identifies or explains the causes of service quality
problems and customer dissatisfaction. The model helps find possible sources for quality
problems through the identification of five possible discrepancies among the components of
the basic structure, called quality gaps (Ingram and Daskalakis, 1999). According to
Parasuraman et al. (1985), the causes of these five quality gaps are inconsistencies in the
-58-
Chgpler 3. Literature Review H
JNam. 2008
quality managementprocess. Gaps I through 4 relate to shortageswithin the service

provider's business,while Gap 5 illustrates the potential incongruity betweenthe expected
andperceivedservicefrom the customer'sview. This model claims that customersjudge the
quality of each service experienceusing the gap betweenexpectedand perceived service
(Parasuraman
et al., 1990).
The SERVQUAL scale, based on the gaps model, identified five dimensions underlying
service quality (Lee and Cunningham, 2001). Parasuramanet at. (1988) argued that,
regardlessof the type of service, consumersevaluateservice quality using similar criteria,
which group into five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,assurance,and
dimensions,
derived
five
dimensions
from
These
10
which were
overlapping
empathy.
essentialto service quality in Parasuramanet al.'s (1985) exploratory research(Martinez
Caro and Martinez Garcia, 2007). Table 3.5 shows the final SERVQUAL dimensionsand
definitions.
Table 3.5: SERVQUAL Dimensions

Definition
Dimension
Tangibles
Reliability
Questionnaire
Statements
Theappearance
of physicalfacilities,equipment,
personnel
andcommunications
materials
Theabilityto performthepromised
and
servicedependably
accurately
ResponsivenessThewillingness
to helpcustomers
andto providepromptservice
1 to 4
5 to 9
10 to 13
Assurance
Theknowledgeandcourtesyof employees
andtheir ability to
conveytrustandconfidence
14to 17
Empathy
Theprovisionfor caring,individualized
attentionto customers
18to 22
Source: Williams (1998, p. 101)

SERVQUAL can be consideredone of the most useful tools for measuringservicequality in
many service industries (Lewis, 1993). SERVQUAL is a concise scale, easy to use by
managers,and regardedas a standardby other service researchers(Llosa et al., 1998).The
scalehas had replication in numerousservice classifications in order to assessits general
-59-
JNam. 2008
have
broadly
Although
both
2004).
(Hudson
and
practitioners
applicability
academics
et al.,
issues
inception
in
its
SERVQUAL
the
unresolved
remain
mid-1980s,
utilized
since
concerningthe theoretical and operationalstructureof the SERVQUAL scale (Kozak et al.,
2003).Figure 3.9 showstheoreticaland operationalcriticisms of SERVQUAL.
Figure 3.9: Criticisms of SERVQUAL
Operational Criticisms
Theoretical Criticisms
Source: Adapted from Buttle (1996, pp.10-11)

As shown in Figure 3.9, after reviewing the related literature, Buttle (1996) made the case
for theoreticaland operationalcriticisms:
(1) Theoretical Criticisms
Paradigmatic objections
SERVQUAL is unwisely based on a disconfirmation paradigm rather than an attitudinal
fails
draw
SERVQUAL
Furthermore,
to
on establishedeconomic, statistical, and
paradigm.
psychologicaltheory (Buttle, 1996).
Gapsmodel
Little evidenceexists to supportthat customersestimateservicequality in terms of P-E gaps.
The difference betweenthe perceivedlevel of service (P) and the expectedlevel of service
(E) is calculated in order to estimate the gap between them (Buttle, 1996). Babakusand
-60-
Chgj2ter3. Literature Review U
JNam. 2008
Boller (1992) suggested that the use of different scores in multivariate analysis may suffer
from low reliability and validity, and thesescoresdo not provide information beyond what
is alreadycontainedin the perceptioncomponentof the SERVQUAL scale.
Dimensionality
Much important criticism concerns dimensionality in the SERVQUAL scale. The most
serious is the number of dimensions and lack of stability from context to context. The five
dimensions are not universal. The number of dimensions comprising service quality is
context-dependent and a high degree of correlation exists among the five SERVQUAL
dimensions. Thus, precise discrimination is lacking (Buttle, 1996).
Processorientation
SERVQUAL focuses on the process of service delivery, not the results of the service
encounter. Critics argued that the result of the service encounter is missing from the
Parasuramanet al. (1985) formulation of servicequality (Richard andAllaway, 1993).
(2) Operational Criticisms
Item composition
Four or five items can not capturethe variability within each service quality dimension.As
a result, researcherssometimesusedmore than the 22 items for the SERVQUAL construct
in their studies.For example, Carman (1990) used40 items in hospitality service research
andthe Salehand Ryan's (1991) study for the hospitality industry used33 items.
Expectations
The term expectation has a number of meanings. Customers use standardsother than
expectationsto estimate service quality, and SERVQUAL fails to include absolute service
quality expectations. Teas (1993) suggested that respondents' interpretations of the
expectationpart of the SERVQUAL instrumentare not controlled.
Polarity
The reversepolarity of items in the scalecausesrespondenterror. Of the original 22 items
-61-
JNam. 2008
in the SERVQUAL scale, 13 have positive wordings and 9 have negative wordings.
Parasuraman
et al. (1988) usedthe negativeitems to reducesystematicresponses.But this
strategyseemsto fluster respondents(WasonandJohnson-Laird,1972).
Two administrations
The two-stepdesignof the procedurecan causeboredomand confusion.Bouman and Van

Der Wele (1992) suggestedthat respondentsappear bored and often confused by the
administrationof expectedand perceivedversionsof SERVQUAL. Boredomand confusion
endangerdataquality.
On the other hand, a secondalternativeperspectivesuggestedthat service quality should
have measurementby a pcrforrnancc-onlyapproachthat focuseson customerperceptions
ratherthan consideringcustomerexpectationstogether(Martinez Caro and Martinez Garcia,
2007). McDougall and Levesque(1994) proposedthat including an expectationscoreon a
servicequality instrumentmay be unnecessaryand inefficient. This is due to the fact that
people tend to indicate consistentlyhigh expectationratings and their perception scores
rarely exceedtheir expectations(Babakusand Bollcr, 1992).This reasoninghas given rise
to the developmentof an alternative scale for SERVQUAL, such as SERVPERF(Cronin
andTaylor, 1992).
Cronin and Taylor (1992) developed the SERVPERF model using the same 22 performance
items from the Parasuramanet al. (1988) research. They posited that the performance only
measure is a better means of measuring the service quality construct. This measure revealed
more of the variance in an overall measure of service quality than did SERVQUAL. Brown
et al. (1993) reported the same finding. They also indicated that a psychometrically superior
assessmentof service quality in terms of construct validity and operational efficacy is
obtainable through performance only measure (Martinez Caro and Martinez Garcia, 2007).
Although debate continues in the literature, over the inclusion of expectation in the
measurementof service quality, the resulting, general agreement is that performance only
measuresarc superior (e.g., Cronin and Taylor, 1994; Parasuramanet al., 1994; Teas, 1994).
Therefore, the present research adopts a performance-only approach that focuses on
-62-
JNam. 2008
customerperception rather than considering customerexpectation to measureperceived

quality.
3.4.5 Brand Equity Research in the Hospitality Industry

Since brand is, apparently,a quick way for hospitality firms to identify and differentiate
themselvesin the minds of the customers,much researchhas beenconductedregardingthe
branding phenomenonin the hospitality industry (Kim et al., 2003). However, relatively
limited empirical researchis forthcoming with respectto customer-basedequity of service
brands due to the fact that most studies focus on goods or have applied a non-altered
frameworkto suggestbrandequity value (Kim andKim, 2005).
Muller and Woods(1994) madeseveralproposalsand suggestionsregardingthe importance
industry.
in
They
brand
the
than
restaurant
of
managementrather
product management
image,
brand
development
for
"
"restaurant,
the
and
of
emphasized need
a clear conceptof
dependabilityof brand name.Similarly, Muller (1998) stressedthree key issuesfor service
branding in order to build equity in the marketplace:quality products and services,an
established,symbolic and evocative image, and executionof service delivery. He insisted
that, throughthe combinationof thesethree elements,in restaurant-branddevelopment,the
opportunity would come for charging premium prices and enhancingbrand loyalty (Kim
andKim, 2005).
Cobb-Walgrenet al. (1995) focused on a customer-based,perceptualmeasureof brand
equity. This study employed the perceptual componentsof the Aaker's (1991,1996)
dimensionof brandequity: brandawareness,brandassociationsand perceivedquality. Two
sets of brands, from service categories(hotels) and from product categories(household
cleansers),were the examples for examining the effect of brand equity on consumer
preferencesand purchaseintentions.The key findings of this study indicatedthat the brand
with the higher equity in eachcategorygeneratedsignificantly greatercustomerpreference
andpurchaseintentions.
-63-
JNam. 2008
Chamer 3. Literature Review U
Researchby Prasadand Dev (2000) estimatedbrand equity in the lodging industry. They
developeda customer-ccntricindex of hotel brand equity considering customersas the
sourceof all cash flow and resulting profits. Here, the customer-centricbrand equity index
is a measurefor converting customers'awarenessof a brand and their view of a brand's
performanceinto numericalindices(Kim and Kim, 2005).
Kim and Kim (2005) examinedthe underlying dimensionsof brand equity and how they
affect firms' performancesin the hospitality industry - in particular,luxury hotels and chain
restaurants.The resultsof this empirical study indicatedthat brandloyalty, perceivedquality,
brand equity. Apparently,a
and brand image are important componentsof customer-based
positive relationship existed betweenthe componentsof customer-basedbrand equity and
the firms' performancein luxury hotelsand chainrestaurants.
Recently, Chen and Chang (2008) investigatedthe relationships between brand equity,
switching costs, brand preference,and purchaseintention in the airline industry. The
findings not only revealedthe effects of brand equity on brand preferenceand purchase
intention,but also showedmoderatingeffectsof switching costson the relationshipbetween
brand equity and purchase intention. More specifically, the effect of brand equity on
purchaseintention is significant in high-switching cost group, while the effect of brand
equity on purchaseintention is not significant in low-switching cost group.
3.5 Summary
This chapterdealswith the conceptof brandequity which, over the last severaldecadeshas
been the subject of many studies. Previous researchhas defined brand equity variously
reflecting different scholar's perspectives,but a basic consensuson the conceptof brand
equity remains.The agreementis that brand equity is the value added to the product or
serviceby the name of a brand. The first part of this chapter outlines and discussesthe
meaningof a brandby identifying the differencebetweena brandand a productfollowed by
the introductionof the various definitions of a brand from previous literature. The second
-64-
JNam. 2008
Chamer 3. Literature Review H
part of the chapterconsidersthree different perspectivesrelating to brand equity: customer-,

financial-, and comprehensive-based
perspectives.Although a financial perspectivemay
offer a more precise insight into the value of a brand, it may not be useful for managers'
developmentof marketing strategiesbecausethe fimancialperspectiveis only limited to a
brand'svalue estimation.The customer-based
is
perspective more practical in the sensethat
the information offers a strategicvision of customers'behaviourand a brand managercan
develop brand strategiesaccordingly (Kim et al., 2008). In addition, within marketing
literature,two different operationalizationsof customer-based
brand equity: perceptualand
behavioural perspectivesare delineated. Keller (2008) suggestedthat the behavioural
brandequity becauseconsumersmay
perspectiveshould be excludedfrom customer-based
be in the habit of buying a particular brandwithout really thinking much aboutwhy.
Therefore, the design of this researchprovides insights into the value of a brand by adopting
the customer-based brand equity perspective and perceptual perspective. In particular,
dimensions of brand equity, namely: self-concept, brand identification,
lifestyle and
perceived quality, arc assumed to construct the context of customer-based brand equity,
thereby leading to this study's review of the four dimensions in detail.
Finally, the chapter'slast sectionprovidesa review of the existing brand equity researchfor
the hospitality industry. While brand equity has emergedas one of the most important
aspectsof branding, studies which explain brand equity within the service industry,
considerationof sectorbrandsin the hospitality industry is conspicuouslyabsent.However,
no doubt remains that brand equity is a major source of competitive advantagefor
hospitalityfirms.
-65-
CHAPTER 4
Chqj2ler4. Literature Review17
JNam. 2008
CHAPTER FOUR
LITERATURE REVIEW III:

4.1 Introduction
Sincethe term "brand equity" emergedin the 1980s,a burgeoninginteresthasarisenfor the
subject among marketing academiciansand practitioners (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995).
However,researchershave focusedprimarily on defining and measuringthe concept,and,
This chapteraddresses
to a lesserextent, understandingits antecedentsand consequences.
both antecedentsand consequences
of brand equity. The first part of this chapterconcerns
personalvalues as an antecedentof brand equity. From the existing literature, it briefly
defines the personal values, application to consumerbehaviour and measurement.The
brand
brand
loyalty.
secondpart of this chapterconcernsconsequences
such
as
of
equity
This part cites a wide body of literature about brand loyalty as a consequenceof brand
equity. It includes definitions, importance,typology, measurementand several critiques
related to brand loyalty measurement.The final part of this chapter presentscustomer
satisfactionand value for money literature involving the definitions and different types of
evaluations.
-67-
ChgRter4. Literature ReviewN
J]Vam.2008
4.2 Antecedents of Brand Equity

Personal values are generally the designated independentvariables in the study of
influence
for
behaviour
of,
and
as
an
exploration
consumer
and are acceptedas powerful
held
Previous
the personal
Olson,
1994).
behaviour
(Maio
researchers
and
on, consumer
decisions
in
behavioural
for
function
implicit,
generaland
as grounds
values,explicit or
(1980)
However,
Kahle
1988).
Kahle,
behaviours
in
(Homer
and
consumer
particular
less
behaviour
through
indirect
have
consumer
that
effect on
an
argued
personalvalues
the
In
supports
the
chain
model
means-end
addition,
abstract mediating variables.
behaviour.
less
between
links
consumer
and
variables
abstract
associative
personalvalues,
Thus,this researchproposespersonalvaluesasa significantantecedentof brandequity.
4.2.1 Personal Values

Personalvalues research in consumerbehaviour has received a substantial amount of
1988).
Even
Gutman,
(Reynolds
from
both
and
attention
academicsand practitioners
though the literature reflects an emerging interest, personalvalues do not have as wide
One
be
behaviour
direct
reason
expected.
to
might
as
examinationsof consumer
application
is that personalvalues include broad-basedconceptssuch as freedom, security, or inner
harmony.However,becausepersonalvaluesdrive much of consumerbehaviour(at leastin
a very general sense),reasonably,therefore, virtually all consumer researchultimately
relatesto personalvalues(Solomon,2002).
4.2.1.1 Definitions of Personal Values

The valuesconceptis often the identifying factor for unknown or underlying variablesin
individual actions(Dibley and Baker,2001). Values,understoodto be intrinsic, lasting and
relatively steady beliefs in an individual's life and derined as mental representationsof
needs,arean individual's generalbasefor resolvingconflict and decisions,and determining,
regulating and modifying relationshipsbetween individuals, organizationsand societies
-68-
Chgj2ter4. Literature ReviewN
JNwn. 2008
(Lagesand Fernandes,2005). The intangible natureof personalvalues makes a definition

difficult, and cognitive psychologyprovidesa frameworkfor exploration (Dibley and Baker,
2001).
Rokeach(1973, p.5) defined personalvaluesas "an enduringbelief that a specific modeof
conduct or end-stateof existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or
" Values are responsible for the
conversemode of conduct or end-state of existence.
individuals
(or
toward
the
strive, while
selectionand maintenanceof
which
ends)
goals
simultaneouslyregulatingthe mannerin which this striving takesplace (Vinson et al., 1977).
Grunert-Beckmanand Askegaard(1997) suggestedcommon acceptancefor values being
the point of intersectionbetweenindividual and society becausevalues help to know and
understandthe interpersonalworld and guide the individual's adaptationto surrounding
conditions. According to Meglino and Ravlin (1998), values specify an individual's
personalbeliefs: how one shouldor ought to behavein particular social environments.
Although a review of the literature on personalvaluesyields a large numberof definitions,
five featuresare commonto most. Accordingly,valuesare: (1) conceptsor beliefs (2) about
desirableend statesor behaviours,(3) that transcendspecific situations,(4) guide selection
or evaluationof behaviourand events,and (5) rank accordingto relative importance.These
five featuresdescribethe formal characteristicsof personalvalues (Schwartz and Bilsky,
1987).Researchers
describedthe natureand sourceof valuesas cognitive representations
of
three types of universal requirements:biologically basedneedsof the individual, socially
basedinteractional needs for interpersonalcoordination, and socially based institutional
demandsfor groupwelfare and survival. Thus,valuesmay be viewed at both individual (i.e.,
personal)and institutional (i. e., group) levels (Madrigal and Kahle, 1994).Rokeach(1973)
noted that the latter are socially shared cognitive representationsof group goals and
demands,while the former are socially sharedcognitive representationsof personalneeds
andthe meansfor satisfyingthem.
-69-
Choler 4. Literature ReviewN
JNam. 2008
4.2.1.2 Applications
of Personal Values to Consumer Behaviour
An acceptedtenet is that personalvaluesare powerful forcesfor governingthe behaviourof

individuals in all aspectsof their lives (Rokeach,1968;Yankelovich, 1981).As mentioned
earlier, previous researchersheld that values, explicit or implicit, function as groundsfor
behaviouraldecisions in general and consumptionbehaviours in particular (Homer and
Kahle, 1988).Recentempirical studiesprovidedsomeevidencethat personalvaluesmay be
useful in understandingbehaviouras complexas the selectionof a particular brandwithin a
in
Using
Woodside,
1983).
(Pitts
values
marketing
personal
product class category
and
plans and strategiescould improve by relating consumers'behaviour with their values.
Severalattempts have tried to provide a theoretical and conceptualstructure connecting
personalvalues to consumers'behaviour (e.g., Young and Feigin, 1975; Howard, 1977;
Vinson et al., 1977).Theseattemptssubsumein the rubrics of means-endchain model and
laddering(Gutman,1982).
4.2.1.2.1Means-End Chain Model

Gutman(1982) describedthe role of personalvaluesin influencing consumerbehaviouras
a means-endchain model which is the connectionbetweenproduct attributes,consumer
consequences,
and personalvalues.Attributes are featuresor aspectsof productsor brands.
Consequences
accrueto people from consumingproductsor brands.These consequences
may have undesirable or desirable benefits. The central aspect of the model is that
consumerschoose actions that produce desired consequencesand minimize undesired
(Valette-Florenceand Rapacchi,1991).
consequences
The means-endchain model incorporatestwo fundamentalassumptionsabout consumer
behaviour:(1) that values,definedhereasdesirableend-statesof existence,play a dominant
role in guiding choice patterns,and (2) that peoplecope with the tremendousdiversity of
productsor brandsthat are potential satisfiersof their valuesby grouping them into setsor
classesso asto reducethe complexity of choice.In addition to thesetwo assumptionsabout
consumerbehaviour that are essentialto the particular form of the model, two other
-70-
Choter 4. Literature ReviewN
JNam. 2008
assumptionsare more generaland posit that all consumers'actionshave consequences,

and
that consumerslearn to associateparticular consequences
with particular actions (Gutman,
1982). However, becausethe means-endchain contains consumers' personally relevant
meaningsfor productsand brands,the chain is unique to eachconsumer'sbackgroundand
personalinterests.Thus, although some similarities exist, different consumersare likely to
havedifferent means-endchainsfor the sameproductsor brands(Peteret al., 1999).Figure
4.1 presentsfour levels in the means-endchainand givesexamplesof eachlevel.
Figure 4.1: Means-EndChain Model of Consumers'ProductKnowledge
Level of
Abstraction
Example
Explanation
Abstract
Self-esteem
Preferred end states of being and
preferred modes of behavior
Notice Me
Excelled
Performance
Concrete
High Price
Psychological (How do I feel?) and

social (How do others feel about me)
consequencesof product use
Immediate, tangible consequencesof

product use. What does the product
do? What functions does it perform?
Physical characteristics of product as well

as subjective tangible characteristics
Source:Adaptedfrom Peteret al. (1999,p.72)

As shown in Figure 4.1, the means-endchain model suggestsconsumerperceptionsand
product knowledge from a hierarchical organization that ranges from attributes to
to personal
consumptionconsequences
such as functional and psychologicalconsequences
values(Young and Fcigin, 1975; Gutman, 1982).This basic hierarchy startswith product
attributeswhich have consumptionconsequences,
each of which, in turn, supportsone or
-71-
Chapter 4. Literature ReviewN
JNam. 2008
more importantvalues in that person'slife (Reynoldset al., 1995).Similar to the Hierarchy

of Needs(Maslow, 1954),the means-endchain theory seeksto understandhumanactionsin this casepurchasebehaviour- as a method for satisfying different levels of needs.The
means-endchain model suggeststhat concreteattributes link to self-relevanceand more
abstractassociations(Wansink, 2003). In addition, the means-endchain model provides
researcherswith a theoretical framework usedto assesshow product or brand choices(at
the subordinatelevel) lead to consumers'satisfactionof certain personal values (at the
links
between
four
levels:
level).
The
superordinate
model shows simple, associative
product attributesleadingto consequences
or benefitssuchas functional and psychological
Baker,
1).
200
in
(Dibley
turn,
consequences,
and
which
satisfy personalvalues
4.2.1.2.1.1 Laddering
Reynoldsand Craddock(1988) applied the means-endchain model to the developmentof

marketingstrategiesthrougha processthey called laddering.Ladderingrefersto an in-depth,
one-on-one interviewing technique to determine the links among product attributes,
consumptionconsequences,and personal values (Valette-Florenceand Rapacchi, 1991;
Assael, 1998).Laddering consists of a series of directed probes based on distinctions
mentionedby the consumerswith respectto the product or brand. Consumersare helpedto
ascendthe ladder through a seriesof probesthat start with concreteproduct attributesand
then uncover more abstract consumptionconsequencesand even more abstractpersonal
values(Assael,1998).
The purpose of laddering is to elicit distinctions at higher levels of abstractions,thus
uncoveringthe structural aspectsof consumerknowledge as modeled by the means-end
chain. In practice, a sequenceof in-depth probes then traces the memory-network of
connections or associations that eventually lead to personal values. This process,
accomplishedby some versions of the "Why is that important for you?" question,
essentiallyusesthe responseat eachlevel asthe basisfor the next probe.The final goal is to
determinesetsof links amongthe key perceptualelementsacrossthe rangeof. attributes,
consequences,
and values(Valette-Florenceand Rapacchi,1991).
-72-
JNam. 2008
Laddering is an effective method to evaluateand draw implications about the means-end

chainmodel (Reynoldsand Gengler,1991).By identifying the connectionsbetweenproduct
laddering
helps
in
the
chains,
attributes,consequencesand values
consumers'means-end
managersunderstandthe significanceof productattributesto the consumer.Basedon these
consumerinsightsfrom the means-endchain model,marketingmanagerscan developmore
effectivemarketingstrategies(Peteret al., 1999).
4.2.1.3 Measurements of Personal Values

For almost as long as personal values have been studied in consumer behaviour,
methodologyhas beenof interestto researchers(e.g., Rokeach,1973;Vinson et al., 1977;
Clawsonand Vinson, 1978; Reynoldsand Jolly, 1980; Kahle, 1983; Beatty et al., 1985;
Munson and McQuarrie, 1988; Crosby et al., 1990).Clawsonand Vinson (1978) implied
that progress in methodological issues is crucial for understandingthe relationship
betweenconsumerbehaviourand personalvalues.The most widely used personalvalues
inventories in consumerresearchare the RokeachValue Survey (RVS), List of Values
(LOV) andValueand Lifestyle (VALS).
4.2.1.3.1Rokeach Value Survey (RVS)

The most commonlyusedinstrumentto measurepersonalvaluesis Rokeach's(1973) value
survey(RVS) (Munsonand McQuarrie, 1988).The RVS consistsof two lists of 18 itemsor
values.One list containsvaluesclassifiedas terminal, ideal end-statesof existence,and the
other consistsof instrumentalvalues,ideal modesof behaviour(Pitts and Woodside,1983).
Table4.1 showsthe two typesof valuesin the RVS.
-73-
JNam. 2008
Table 4.1: Two Typesof Valuesin the RokeachValueSurvey (RVS)

Terminal Values
Instrumental Values
Ambitious
Imaginative
A comfortablelife
Inner harmony
Broad-minded
Independent
An exciting life
Mature love
Capable
Intellectual
A senseof accomplishment
Pleasure
Cheerful
Logical
A world at peace
National security
Clean
Loving
A world of beauty
Salvation
Courageous
Obedient
Equality
Self-respect
Forgiving
Polite
Family security
Social recognition
Helpful
Responsible
Freedom
True friendship
Honest
Self-controlled
Happiness
Wisdom
Source: Adaptedfrom BeardenandNeterneyer(1999,pp.124-125)

As shown in Table 4.1, Rokeach (1973) differentiated between means and ends, and
classified36 values into two setsof IS: terminal valuesand instrumentalvalues.Terminal
happiness,
security and
as
values concern preferred end states of existence, such
being
behaviour,
instrumental
such
as
accomplishment,while
values concern modes of
honest,courageousand broad-minded,which are effective in achieving those end states
(Dibley and Baker, 2001). The instrumentaskssubjectsto rank each set of values in order
of importanceas guiding principlesin their lives (Madrigal andKahle, 1994).
Much researchhas examined the RVS. For example, Munson and McQuarrie (1988)
attemptedto reducethe RVS to valuesmost relevantto consumerbehaviourand found three
factorsunderlyingthe 24 consumerbehaviourrelevantvalues- "values to help fulfill adult
responsibilities"factor, "values to help fulfill lifestyle goals" factor and "values to help
relievetension" factor. In anotherresearch,Crosbyet al. (1990) found three dimensionsfor
the instrumentvalues: self-direction (9 items), conformity (5 items), and virtuousness(4
items) with compositereliability estimatesof 0.87,0.57 and 0.65, respectively,and three
dimensionsfor the terminal values: self-actualization/hedonism(12 items), idealism (3
items),and security(3 items) with compositereliability of 0.62,0.58 and 0.67, respectively
(BeardenandNetemeyer,1999).
-74-
J-Nam.2008
Although the instrument has received criticism becauseof the difficulty associatedwith
ranking so many items, the time requiredto completethe task, the impossibility of ties, and
the lack of relevanceof all valuesto daily life, considerableevidenceexists for the RVS as
an effective-valueresearchinstrument (Clawson and Vinson, 1978; Crosby et al., 1990).
Especially,due to the problems involved with the ranking task, a number of studies in
marketinghavereplacedthe original rankingprocedurewith Likert-type scales(e.g., Vinson
and Munson, 1976;Vinson et al., 1977;Reynoldsand Jolly, 1980;Munson and McQuarrie,
1988;Crosbyet al., 1990).
4.2.1.3.2 List of Values (LOV)

In response to criticisms of RVS, the more parsimonious List of Values (LOV) scale was
developed and tested on a national probability sample (Veroff et al., 1981; Kahle, 1983).
The LOV scale consists of nine values derived from Rokeach's (1973) list of terminal
values: a sense of belonging, excitement, fun and enjoyment of life, self-fulfillment, being
well respected, warm relationships with others, security, senseof accomplishment, and selfrespect (Zins, 1998). Although based on the RVS, only sense of accomplishment and selfrespect in the LOV scale are identical to RVS items. The choice of terminal values is due to
their operation at a greater level of abstraction than instrumental values, and the terminal
values appear to be more relevant to consumer behaviour (Howard, 1977; Pitts et al., 1991;
Kamakura and Novak, 1992). Table 4.2 shows the List of Values.
Table 4.2: List of Values (LOV)

List of Values
Self-fulfillment
Excitement
Senseof accomplishment
Self-respect
Senseof belonging
Being well respected
Security
Fun and enjoymentof life
Wann relationshipwith others
Source: Adapted from Bearden and Neterneyer (1999, p. 117)
Severalattemptsoffer to further condensethe LOV items into a value systemof fewer
-75-
JNam. 2008
dimensions(Zins, 1998).According to Kahle (1983),the valuesof self-fulfillment, senseof

accomplishment,fun and enjoymentof life, excitement,warm relationshipswith othersand
self-respectrepresentan internal orientation; whereassecurity, sense of belonging, and
being well-respectedreflect externally-orientedvalues.Internally-orientedindividuals tend
to be more self-motivated and believe that they are able to influence events and control
outcomesin their lives. Externally-orientedindividuals, on the other hand, tend to feel
powerlessand believe that forces outside of themselvesdetermine solutions to problems
(Madrigal, 1995).
Furthermore,LOV theory considersthe importanceof people in value fulfillment, which
can occur through interpersonalrelationships(wann relationships with others, senseof
belonging), personal factors (self-respect, being well respected, self-fulfillment), or
apersonalfactors(senseof accomplishment,excitement,security,fun and enjoymentof life)
(Chryssohoidis and Krystallis, 2005). However, Kahle et al. (1986) noted that the
underlying structure may be contextual,thus factor loadings may vary slightly from one
situationto the next.
4.2.133 Value and Lifestyle (VALS)

One of the more intriguing developmentshas been the Value and Lifestyle (VALS)
methodologydevelopedat SRI International by Mitchell (1983). The VALS (known as
VALS 2 due to revision of the earlier VALS 1) beganwith Maslow's (1954) theoretical
baseof needhierarchyand the conceptof social character(Kahle et al., 1986).The basis
of VALS is from two key concepts:psychologicalattributes called orientationsand key
demographicsdealing with resources.Resourcesencompasseducation, self-confidence,
to buy and energylevel, as well as income.Togetherorientation and resources
eagerness
are predictive of consumer buying behaviour, and VALS divides people into eight
segmentsbased on their answers to four demographic questions and 35 attitudinal
statements(Morton, 1999).Figure4.2 showsthe VALS 2 segments.
-76-
Chapter 4. Literature ReviewH
JiVam. 2008
Figure 4.2: VALS 2 Segments
ACTUALIZERS
Abundant Resources
Primary Motivation
Minimal Rcsources
STRUGGLERS
Source: www.sric-bi.con-dvals(2005)
As shown in Figure 4.2, VALS divides people into eight groups, each with distinctive
characteristics:actualizers,fulfillers, achievers,experiencers,believers, strivers, makers
and strugglers.The groups split on two dimensions.The vertical dimension represents
consumers'resources.Actualizers have the most resources;strugglers the least. The
horizontaldimensionrepresentsthree different ways consumersseethe world. The guides
for principle-orientedconsumersare their views of how the world is or should be and
representeither fulfillers or believers. The opinions of others guide status-oriented
consumerssuchasachieversand strivers.Action-orientedconsumers,suchasexperiencers
and makers,gain motivation from a desirefor activity, variety, and risk taking. Of the two
groups in each sector, one has abundantresourcesand another has minimal resources
(Assael,1998).
However,many of the specific questionsin VALS havecultural bias aimedtoward the US,
-77-
JNam. 2008
Chgpter 4. Literature ReviewN
and previous researchrevealedthat VALS relies heavily on demographicvariables and

does not relate to consumerbehaviouras closely as do other systemssuch as RVS and
LOV (Kahle and Kennedy,1989).In addition, althoughmany researchershavetestedboth
RVS and LOV scales,the evidencethat any one is betterthan the other is not very strong.
Oneof the remainingdebatesof measuringpersonalvaluesis whetherto useRVS or LOV
scales.From the previous research,both RVS and LOV scales have proven helpful as
effective-valueresearchinstrumentsin understandingconsumerbehaviour(e.g., Vinson et
al., 1977;Prakashand Munson, 1985;Beatty et al., 1985;Munson and McQuarrie, 1988;
Madrigal and Kahle, 1994;Madrigal, 1995;Keng and Lui, 1997;Shim and Eastlick, 1998;
Zins, 1998). Therefore, RVS and LOV are simultaneouslyadoptedto measurepersonal
valuesin the presentresearch.Especially,this researchadoptsonly instrumentalvaluesof
RVS becauseLOV derivesmainly from RVS'sterminal values.
4.3 Consequencesof Brand Equity

The issue of brand equity has emergedas one of the most critical areas for marketing
management.Despitestrong interestin the subject,little study existswhich dealswith what
its preciseconsequences
are (Cobb-Walgrenet al., 1995).Among severalconsequences,
a
prominent one is brand loyalty. Providing customers with a strong brand is widely
recognizedas a meansof improving brand loyalty (Johnsonet al., 2006). Indeed, brand
equity is commonlyregardedas an importantprerequisitefor establishingbrand loyalty. As
brand loyalty is an essentialgoal of every hospitality business,developing a brand with
strong equity has recognition as a major priority (Lassaret al., 1995; Hsieh, 2004). Thus,
this researchproposesbrandloyalty as a significant consequence
of brandequity.
4.3.1 Brand Loyalty

From a marketing strategy viewpoint, brand loyalty is a very important concept.
Particularly in today's low-growth and highly competitive marketplace, the development
and maintenance of brand loyalty occupies a place at the heart of companies' marketing
-78-
JNa?n. 2008
plans, and repeat patronization is often a more efficient strategy than one designedto
attract new customers(Fournier and Yao, 1997). Retaining brand-loyal customershas
becomeincreasinglyimportant in the hospitality industry becauseof the industry's highly
competitivenatureand its maturationin businesslife-cycles (Lewis and Chambers,2000).
Thus, practitionersand academicsalike regardbrand loyalty as strategicimportancefor a
2004).
company'ssurvival (Gounarisand Stathakopoulos,
Despitethe amountof researchon brand loyalty spanningthe last three decades,neither a
forthcoming
been
(Bandyopadhyay
has
clear conceptualnor an operationalunderstanding
and Martell, 2007). Plaguing brand loyalty researchis the debateof whether or not to
conceptualizeand operationalize brand loyalty from an attitudinal or a behavioural
perspective.Therefore,a consensusdefinition of brand loyalty remainselusive and vague
(Peteret al., 1999).
4.3.1.1 What is Brand Loyalty?

Despite the many studies, previous research has been unable to contribute a clear
conceptual understanding of brand loyalty (Bandyopadhyay and Martell, 2007). However,
generally, brand loyalty is accepted as a two-dimensional construct (Day, 1969), comprising
attitudinal brand loyalty and behavioural brand loyalty (Baldinger and Rubinson, 1996).
Earlier research apprehended three approaches to brand loyalty in different ways: the
behavioural approach which is purely bchavioural, the attitudinal approach that considers
loyalty as an attitude, and the composite approach that integrates both behavioural and
attitudinal approaches(Odin et al., 2001).
43.1.1.1 Definitions of Brand Loyalty

Among academicsand practitioners,little doubtexiststhat the conceptof brandloyalty is of
strategicimportancefor companiesin order to obtain a sustainablecompetitiveadvantage.
In spite of the numerous studies, the researchparadigm is unique in its inability to produce a
-79-
JNam. 2008
Chapter 4. Literature ReviewIY
generalizedresult, and has no consensusof definition and operationalization in marketing

literature(Bandyopadhyay and Martell, 2007). For example, brand loyalty has various
definitions: repeatpurchase,preference,commitment,retentionand allegiance.Furthermore,
various aspectsof brand loyalty, such as behaviouraland attitudinal brand loyalty, further
complicate the issue (Gounaris and Stathakopoulos,2004). The consensus among
researchersis that brand loyalty is a very complexconstruct.Evidenceof this complexity is
obvious from the lack of consistencyin how brand loyalty has been defined (Javalgi and
Moberg, 1997).
One group prefers to define brand loyalty in behaviouralterms. For the defendersof the
behaviouralperspective:the individual who buys the same brand systematicallyis brand
loyal (Odin et al., 2001). Behavioural definitions have their basis in the number of
purchasesfor a particular brand (Bass, 1974;Tranbergand Hansen,1986).Monitoring the
frequencyof purchasesor the amount of brand switching among consumersin a product
categorymeasuresthe level of brand loyalty (Javalgi and Moberg, 1997). For instance,
Hawkinset al. (1995) defined loyalty as consumers'actualbehaviourto repeatedlypurchase
certainproductsor brands.Hammondet al. (1996)alsodefined behaviouralbrandloyalty as
the customer'stendencyto repurchasea brandas revealedthrough behaviourwhich directly
impactsbrandsales.
Another group defines brand loyalty from an attitudinal perspectivewhich considersthe
psychologicalcomponent of the commitment the consumermakes in the purchaseact,
without necessarilytaking the effectivepurchasebehaviourinto account(e.g., Jacoby,1971;
Jarvisand Wilcox, 1976).Guest(1944)definedbrandloyalty asthe constancyof preference
over a period of yearsin the I ife of the individual. Guest's(1944) "constancyof preference"
idea coincidedwith the notion of attitudinal loyalty. Webber(1998) also maintainedthat
brand loyalty is a strongly motivated and long standingdecision to purchasea particular
brand.
Many researchers
expressa needfor the inclusionof attitude along with behaviourto define
brand loyalty (Bandyopadhyay and Martell, 2007). Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) proposed
-80-
JNa7n.2008
Chgj2ter4. Literature ReviewX
integration of the two notions of behaviour and attitude within the same conceptual
definition. They are the first authors to proposea set of six necessaryand collectively
sufficient conditions. Accordingly, brand loyalty is: (1) the biased (i. e., nonrandom),(2)
behaviouralresponse(i. e., purchase),(3) expressedover time (4) by somedecision making
unit, (5) with respectto one or more alternativebrandsfrom of a set of such brands,and (6)
functions from psychological (decision making, evaluative)processes.The authors stated
that the evaluation process(the sixth condition) is what makes an individual develop a
commitment to a brand. This notion of commitment,they argued, provides an essential
basis of differentiating brand loyalty from other forms of repeat purchasing behaviour
(Bandyopadhyayand Martell, 2007).
As mentioned previously, the common acknowledgementin the literature is that the
majority of brand loyalties categorize as behavioural, attitudinal or composite, which
implies that loyalty is a complex multi-dimensional concept (Day, 1969; Jacoby and
Chestnut,1978;Mellens et al., 1996;Baldingerand Rubinson,1997;Farr and Hollis, 1997;
Rundle-Ibiele and Bennett, 2001). The following section presentsthree approachesto
brandloyalty in detail: behavioural,attitudinal andcompositeapproach.
4.3.1.1.1.1Behavioural Approach to Brand Loyalty

Many researchershave defined brand loyalty strictly from a behaviouralperspectivewith
attentionto consistentpurchasebehaviourof a specific brand over time (Bandyopadhyay
andMartell, 2007).The defining elementto brandloyalty is the consumer'sovert purchase
behaviour(Dekimpe et al., 1997). Thus, the common inference and definition are that
brandloyalty is repeatpurchasebehaviourof a particular brand (Questerand Lim, 2003).
Table 4.3 shows several examples of the behavioural definition researchersuses to
describebrandloyalty.
-81-
Chqpier 4. Literature ReviewJY

.
J)Vam.2008
Table 4.3: Examplesof the BehaviouralDefinitions of Brand Loyalty

Author and Source
Behavioural Definitions
Cunningham(1956)
by
Single-brandloyalty is the proportionof total purchasesrepresented
the largestsinglebrandused.
by
Dual-brandloyalty is the proportionof total purchasesrepresented
thetwo largestsinglebrandsused.
Kuehn(1962)
Brand loyalty can be viewed as, at least in part, a function of the

frequencyand regularitywith which a brandhasbeenselectedin the
past.
Tucker(1964)
Farley(1964)
Brand loyalty is a biasedchoice behaviourwith respectto branded

merchandise.
Brand loyalty existswhen a consumerselectsthe samebrand for, at
least,four successive
trials.
Sheth(1968)
Brandloyalty is a functionof a brand'srelativefrequencyof purchase

in bothtime-independent
situations.
andtime dependent
Hawkins et al. (1995)
Brand loyalty is consumers'actualbehaviourto repeatedlypurchase

certainbrands.
Hammondet al. (1996)
Brand loyalty is the customer'stendency to repurchasea brand

revealedthroughbehaviourwhich canbe measuredandwhich impacts
directlyon brandsales.
LeClereand Little (1997)
Brandloyalty is the numberof brandspurchasedin thepreviousyearas

a (negative)indicatorof loyalty.
Many researchers'beliefs and their major assumptionsare that repeat purchasingcan

capture the loyalty of a consumer towards the brand of interest. Thus, while some
researchersobservepurchasingpatternsand madeconclusionsbasedon the proportion of
purchasesdevotedto a particular brand(e.g., Cunningham,1956;Blattbergand Sen, 1974),
othersfocuson the purchasesequence(e.g., McConnell, 1968;Kahn et al., 1986).
However,behaviouralapproachesto brand loyalty have struggled,over the years,to (1)
define brandloyalty -a complex multidimensionalphenomenon- on a single behavioural
dimension,and (2) distinguish betweenrepeatpurchaseand brand loyalty (Jacobyand
Kyner, 1973).Behaviouralapproachesdo not allow distinguishingwhether or not repeat
buying is from habit, for situational reasons,or for more complex psychologicalreasons
(Odin et al., 2001). Behaviouraldefinitions are insufficient to explain how and why brand
-82-
JNam. 2008
Chapter 4. Literature ReviewH
loyalty is developed and modified in consumers'minds (Dick and Basu, 1994). The
problem lies in the fact that the behaviouralapproachconsidersloyalty behaviouras being
inherently inexplicable, or too complex to comprehend:the number of explanatory
variablesas well as their frequencyof appearance
makesany explanationof this behaviour
impossible(Bass, 1974;McAlister and Pessemier,1982).A major disadvantageof such a
point of view arises: it implies an insurmountabledifficulty for a company to influence
repeatpurchasebehaviour,since this companyhas no definitive knowledge of the actual
causeof loyalty (Odin et al., 2001).
Moreover, behaviouralapproachesto brand loyalty rcflect only the convenienceinherent
in the repetitive and habitual behaviour rather than any real commitment to the brand
purchased(Qucster and Lim, 2003). Sharp et al. (2002) suggestedthat attitude is not
relevantto determiningbrand loyalty. Their researchis basedpurely on the notion that no
true definition of brand loyalty exists, and that debating this topic is a waste of time.
Habituals,as termedby Knox (1997), display only behaviouralloyalty and are very likely
to switch brandsupon disruption of their routine purchasepatterns.For habitualsand/or
spuriousloyalists, the brand is not closely tied to the consumers'belief systems,so they
can be easily attracted by a competing brand that offers a better deal, a coupon, or
enhanced point-of-purchase visibility through displays. Therefore, the behavioural
approachessentially fails to distinguish betweenhabitual or spurious loyalty and true
loyalty, and it may be misleading to infcr brand loyalty from merely overt purchase
behaviour(Questerand Lim, 2003).
4.3.1.1.1.2Attitudinal Approach to Brand Loyalty

Respondingto the needto define and explore brand loyalty in terms of its psychological
dynamics(e.g., Jacoby,1971;Jacobyand Kyner, 1973;Dick and Basu, 1994),attitudinal
researchers
emphasizedthe role of mentalprocessesin building brand loyalty (Bennettand
Rundle-Thiele,2002). According to the attitudinal perspective,brand loyalty consistsof a
strong internal disposition towards a brand leading to repeatedpurchases(Gounarisand
Stathakopoulos,
2004). Thus, in the attitudinal approach,basedon brandpreference,brand
-83-
JNam. 2008
commitment,or intention to buy, brand loyalty is an attempt on the part of consumersto

go beyond overt behaviour and express their loyalties in terms of psychological
commitmentsor statementsof preference(Yoonand Uysal, 2005). Table4.4 showsseveral
to describebrand loyalty.
examplesof the attitudinal definitions;usedby researchers
Table 4.4: Examplesof theAttitudinal Definitions of Brand Loyalty
Attitudinal Deflnitions
Author and Source

Guest(1944)
Brand loyalty is a consistencyof preferenceover a period of yearsin

the life of the individual.
Reynoldset a]. (1974)
Brand loyalty is the tendencyfor a personto continueover time to

exhibit similar attitude in situations similar to those previously
encounteredL
Abrams(1982)
Brandloyalty is beingfaithful to anyonebrand.
Elrod (1988)
Brandloyalty is fidelity or tenaciousadherence

to a brand.
Webber(1998)
Brand loyalty is a stronglymotivatedand long standingdecisionto

purchasea particularproduct.
The main postulate of the attitudinal approach is the existence of a limited number of
explanatory factors generating loyalty; the researcher can isolate these factors, and thus,
can manipulate them. The researcher investigates the psychological commitment of the
consumer in purchase without, necessarily, taking the effective purchase behaviour into
account (Odin et al., 200 1).
The psychological attachmentor commitment that a consumerhas towards a specific

brand should undergocloser examinationto provide a comprehensiveunderstandingof
brand loyalty. A richer understandingof brand loyalty in terms of its attitudinal
constituentsis very useful to marketersfor selectingand developingtheir targetmarketsas
well asfor developingloyalty-building and customcr-retentionstrategies(QuesterandLim,
2003).
-84-
Chapter 4. Literature ReviewIZT
JNam. 2008
43.1.1.13 Composite Approach to Brand Loyalty

Many researchershave evaluated brand loyalty as encompassingboth behavioural and
does
brand
loyalty
believe
behaviour
that
not
reflect
alone
attitudinal approachesand
(Questerand Lim, 2003). Newman (1966) was first to challengethe approachof equating
behaviourpatternswith preferencesto infer loyalty. Other researchers(e.g., Coulson, 1966;
Day, 1969) highlighted the distinction between spurious loyalty as captured by the
behaviouralpatternsand true loyalty that extendsbeyondthe regular purchasingof a brand
(Bandyopadhyayand Martell, 2007). Table 4.5 shows severalexamplesof the composite
definition usedby researchersto describebrandloyalty.
Table 4.5: Examples of the Composite Definitions of Brand Loyalty
Composite Definitions
Author and Source

Jacobyand Kyner (1973)
Brand loyalty is the biased(i.e., nonrandom)behaviouralresponse(i.e.,

purchase)expressed
overtime by somedecisionmakingunit with respect
to one or more alternativebrandsout of a set of suchbrands,and is a
functionof psychological
(decisionmaking,evaluative)processes.
Wilkie(1994)
Brand loyalty is a favorable attitude toward, and consistentpurchaseof a

particular brand.
Dick and Basu (1994)
Brand loyalty is the relationship between the relative attitude toward an

entity (brand/service/storelvendor)and patronagebehaviour.
B loemer and Kasper (1995)
Brand loyalty not only concernsthe behaviour of rebuying but also takes
into accountthat actual behaviour's antecedents.
Oliver (1999)
Brand loyalty is a deeply held commitment to repurchaseor repatronisea

product or service, consistently, in the future, thereby causing repetitive
same brand or same brand set purchasing, despite situational influences
and marketing efforts having the potential to causeswitching behaviour.
In a similar vein, Baldinger and Rubinson(1996) expressedtheir belief that brand loyalty
could be better understoodby extending the behavioural definitions of loyalty so as to
encompassattitudes (along with behaviour).Their premise is that classifying consumers
behaviourallY(in terms of their loyalty patterns)makespossible linking thesebehavioural
segmentsto the underlyingattitudestowardsa brand.
-85-
JNam. 2008
Chapter 4. Literature ReviewM
4.3.1.1.2 Importance of Brand Loyalty

The successof a brand in the long term is not basedon the number of consumers
that buy it once, but on the number of consumerswho become regular buyers of
the brand (Jacobyand Chestnut,1978,p. 1).
This statementclearly illustrates the importancefor companiesto put emphasison loyalty
for their brandsas a strategic marketing concept(Odin et al., 2001). Particularly in today's
low-growth and highly competitive marketplace,retaining brand loyal consumersis critical
for survival, and is often a more efficient strategythan attracting new customers(Rosenberg
and Czepiel, 1983).Reichheld (1996) explainedthe advantagesof brand loyalty:
ContinuesProfit
The advantagesof customer loyalty are long-term and cumulative. The longer a customer
loyal,
from
(Reichheld,
business
that
the
single
customer
remains
more profit a
receives
1996). Haywood (1989) stated that repeat patronage represents the backbone of all
businesses.
ReducesMarketing Costs
Businessesmust make investments in marketing, such as advertising, to attract new
customers.Researchshows that the cost of recruiting a new customer is five times more
than the cost of retaining an existing customer(Reichheld and Sasser,1990; Barsky, 1994).
For loyal customers,thesecostsare eliminated and minimized (Reichheld, 1996).
IncreasesPer-customerRevenue Growth
Customerspending tends to increaseover time. For example, a customer who repeatedly
staysat the samehotel becomesmore familiar with the hotel's full product line such as gift
shops and banquet rooms. That customer will likely sample other product lines of the
company,thus helping the company achieve a larger share of the customer's expenditures
(Reichheld,1996).
Chapter 4. Literature ReviewIY
JNam. 2008
DecreasesOperating Costs
For a loyal customer in a hotel, the front desk clerk does not need to spendtime entering
data into the computer, but instead retrieves the loyal customer's information for the
existing database.Loyal customers' familiarity with the company's products makes them
lessdependenton its employeesfor information and service,thus decreasingservicing costs
(Reichheld, 1996).
IncreasesReferrals
Loyal customersrecommendbusinessesto friends and acquaintances.Referrals are a vital
source for new customers, and customers who patronize on the strength of a personal
1996).
decisions
(Reichheld,
tend
to
recommendation
make quick purchase
IncreasesPrice Premiums
Brand loyal customerspay more for a brand becausethey perceive someunique value in the
brand that no other alternative can provide, and they are less likely to be lured away by a
discount. Surveys statedthat, on average,premium priced products earned20% more than
discount brands. Many people will pay more to stay in a hotel they know than to take a
less
on
a
expensivecompetitor (Reichheld, 1996).
chance
Provides CompetitiveAdvantage
As consumersbecome loyal to a brand, they become less sensitive to a price increases.
Krishnamurthi and Raj (1991) demonstratedthat brand-loyal consumers are less price
sensitive as compared to non-brand loyal consumers.A company can maintain a higher
price differentiation over the competition because of the product's ability to satisfy
consumers'needs(Reichheld, 1996).
4.3.1.1.3 Typology of Brand Loyalty

Classifying loyalty has always been a contentious and difficult issue in research.Brand
loyalty takesmany different forms and thesediversetypes of classification have a variety of
categorizations(e.g., Brown, 1952; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978; Colombo and Morrison,
-87-
Chgj2ter4. Literature Review N
JNam. 2008
1989;Semon,1993; Dick and Basu, 1994;Oliver, 1997;Gilbert, 1999).

Researchconducted by Brown (1952), Colombo and Morrison (1989) and Gilbert (1999)
proposedfour types of brand loyalty according to purchasingsequence:hard core loyalty,
hypothetically,
loyalty
In
loyalty,
this
the
model,
soft core
and switchers.
shifting
from
brands
is
for
five
brands
five
which consumerscan
assumption
or
properties of
choose: A, B, C, D and E. Table 4.6 shows types of loyalty, definition and purchasing
sequences.
Table 4.6: Typesof Brand Loyalty
Type
Derinition
Sequence
Hardcoreloyalty
Consumerswho buy only one brand all the time
AAAAA
Soft core loyalty
Consumerswho are loyal to two or three brands
ABABA
Shifting loyalty
Consumerswho shift loyal from one brand to another
AACCC
Switchers
Consumerswho show no loyalty to any brand
ABCDE
Source: Adapted from Gilbert (1999, p.242)

As Table 4.6 shows, hard core loyalists buy one brand all the time and demonstratestrong
allegiance. They would, therefore, on five occasions,buy AAAAA, becausethey have
brands.
brand.
Soft
loyalists
loyal
Thus,
loyalty
to
three
to
the
two
or
core
are
a
undivided
buying pattern of ABABA representsa consumerwhose loyalties are divided betweentwo
competing brands. Shifting loyalists vary their loyalty from one brand to another. The
buying pattern AACCC suggestsa consumerwhose loyalty has shifted from one brand "A"
to brand "C. " Finally, switchers show no loyalty to any one brand. The pattern ABCDE
is
buy
deal
low-price
to
prone
when
a
who
offers
an
advantage,
such
as
suggestsa switcher
offer, salesor extra benefits.They may also be variety shoppersseekingsomethingdifferent
eachtime they purchase(Colombo and Morrison, 1989;Gilbert, 1999).
Dick and Basu (1994) suggesteda typology of loyalty basedon the cross classification of
consumers'repeat patronageof a focal brand and relative attitude toward that brand: true
-88-
Chgpter 4. Literature Review N
JNam. 2008
loyalty, latent loyalty, spurious loyalty and no loyalty. Attitude strength and attitudinal
differentiation detennines relative attitude (Javalgi and Moberg, 1997). Table 4.7 shows
loyalty typology basedon the attitude-behaviourrelationship.
Table 4.7: Loyalty Typology Basedon Attitude-Behaviour Relationship
Relative Attitude
Repeat Patronage of Focal Brand
toward Focal Brand
High
Low
High
True Loyalty
Latent loyalty
Low
Spuriousloyalty
No loyalty
Source: Dick and Basu (1994, p. 101)

As Table 4.7 shows, high repeat patronage and high relative attitude characterizetrue
loyalty. Truly loyal customers are obviously the ultimate goal for marketers (Javalgi and
Moberg, 1997). Raj (1985) found that firms with large market shares also have larger
for
loyal
have
to
alternatives,are more
search
motivation
consumers
who
weaker
groupsof
likely
from
brands,
to passalong positive
to
and
are
more
counter-persuasion
other
resistant
(Dick
the
to
other
consumers
and
communication
about
or
service
product
word-of-mouth
Basu, 1994).
Latent loyalty exists when a consumer has a strong preference for or attitude toward a
brands,
high
its
but
does
brand
competitors'
not
exhibit
repeat patronage
over
company's
due to some situational or environmental variable. For instance, a consumer may have a
but
frequently
Italian
may
not
visit that
a
particular
restaurant,
strong attitude about
income
desire
for
in
lack
discretionary
because
that
variety
meals
or
a
of
of
a
restaurant
limits the numberof patronizations(Javalgi and Moberg, 1997).
A low relative attitude accompanied by high repeat patronage is spurious loyalty
characterizedby non-attitudinal influences on behaviour (Dick and Basu, 1994). Spurious
loyalty occurs when a consumer frequently purchases a brand, but sees no significant
differencesamong brands. This could occur when no alternatives in a category exist, or if
choice is strictly the manifestation of past experiencesand habits (Javalgi and Moberg,
-89-
Charter 4. Literature ReviewIZT
JNam. 2008
1997).
Finally, the no loyalty group displays weak or low levels of both attitude and repeat
between
differences
few
loyalty
No
alternative
exists when consumerssee
patronage.
brands and repeat purchase frequency is low. Brand switching is common and choice
brand
factor,
due
is
brands
on sale or an
to
as
a
such
some situational
usually
among
impulsepurchasefrom an end-of-aisledisplay (Javalgi and Moberg, 1997).
Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) explored the psychological meaning of loyalty in an effort to
distinguish it from behavioural meanings,and they recommendedfour loyalty categories:
loyal
interest),
brand
true
brand
loyalty
(loyalty
focal
the
multi-brand
to
of
true
particular
brand,
focal
the
brand,
focal
includes
and
of
the
non-loyal repeat purchasing
which
happenstancepurchasingof the focal brand by loyal or non-loyal buyers of another brand.
Happenstancepurchasing includes any repeat-purchasesequencedue to factors other than
brand,
favorite
loyalty
surrogate
true psychological
such as unavailability of one's
4.8
these
Table
1997).
(Oliver,
patterns
summarizes
temporary
constraints
purchasing,and
loyalty
categories.
as
and others
Table 4.8: Jacobyand Chestnut'sLoyalty Categories
PsychologicalLoyalty to:
RepeatPurchaseof-. Focalbrand
Multiple brands Otherbrand
None
Focalbrand
Trueloyalty
buyer
Multibrand-loyal NonloyalrepeaterHappenstance
Other brand
Happenstance
buyer
Multibrand-loyal Other-brand-loyal Happenstance
Other-brandbuyer
Source: Adapted from Oliver (1997, p. 390)
Table4.8 clearly showsthe folly of inferring loyalty solely from repeat-purchasingpatterns.

If one seesa pattern of repeatpurchasingof a focal brand, true single-brandloyalty exists in
if
Alternatively,
four
one sees patterns of other-brand repeat
situations.
only one of
brand,
focal
be
in
in
infers
this
to
the
two
conclusion
will
error
non-loyalty
purchasingand
-90-
JNam. 2008
of four cases,one of which includes multi-brand loyalty including the focal brand (Oliver,
1997). Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) stated that the only way to detect true single-brand
loyalty is to examine the belief, affect (attitude), and intention structure (conative) of the
orientation toward the focal brand. Therefore, three conditions must exist for true brand
loyalty. First, the brand information held by a consumer(i. e., the consumer's beliefs) must
point to the focal brand as being superior to what is known of competitive offerings. Then,
the consumer'sdegree of affection must be higher than that for other offerings, so that a
clear affective preferenceexists for the focal brand. Finally, the consumer must intend to
buy the focal brand, as opposedto the alternative brands,when a purchasedecision arises
(Oliver, 1997).
Semon (1993) categorisedloyalty as passive and active loyalty. Passive loyalty describes
those consumers who continue to provide patronage since they perceive that a more
attractive alternative is not available. In contrast,active loyalty representscustomerswho
impression.
loyal
has
because
In
their
the
continue
made a positive
patronage
company
today's competitive market, companieshave to attempt to convert passive loyalty to active
loyalty. If companiesfail to do this, passivecustomerswill easily become switchersowing
to the proliferation of productsor brandsin the market (Semon, 1993).
Oliver (1997) proposedthat three phasesof loyalty - cognitive, affective, conative - which
culminate in action loyalty. This perspective predicts that consumers become loyal in a
cognitive sense,first, then later in an affective sense,still later in a conative manner,and
finally, in a behaviouralmanner,which is action loyalty (Oliver, 1997,1999).
In the first loyalty phase,the brand attribute information available to the consumerindicates
that one brand is preferable to its alternatives.This stage is cognitive loyalty or loyalty
based on belief only. Cognitive loyalty focuses on the brand's performance aspects.
Cognition can have its basis in prior knowledge or on recent experience-basedinformation.
Loyalty at this phase is directed toward the brand becauseof this information (attribute
performancelevels); however,this consumerstateis shallow (Oliver, 1999).
-91-
Chapter 4. Literature Review N
JNam. 2008
The next phase of loyalty is affect-based. Affective loyalty stems from the brand's
likeableness.At this phase of loyalty development,a linkage or attitude toward the brand
has developed on the basis of accumulatedoccasionsof satisfaction. Commitment at this
phase is affective loyalty, encoded in the consumer's mind as cognition and affect.
Cognition is directly subject to counterargument;whereas,affect is integrated,and therefore,
anchored,with both cognition and the consumer'soverall evaluation of a brand (Eagly and
Chaiken, 1993). Unfortunately, affective loyalty, even when driven by episodes of
satisfaction,is insufficient to guaranteeloyalty (Oliver, 1997).
The next phaseof loyalty developmentis the conative(behavioural intention) loyalty stage,
loyalty
by
brand.
Conative
influenced
toward
the
as
repeatedepisodesof positive affect
occurs when the consumerfocuseson the desire to repeatthe purchaseof that brand. This
loyalty state containsthe deeply held commitmentto buy. However, this commitment is for
an intention to repurchasethe brand and is more akin to motivation. In effect, the consumer
desiresto repurchase,but similar to any good intention, this desire may be anticipated but
be
realizedaction may absent(Oliver, 1999).
Action loyalty is the last phaseof loyalty and involves motivated intentions, in the conative
loyalty state,transforming into readinessto act. At this phase,consumers,committed to the
act of repurchasing,ignore and circumvent obstaclesthat prevent the act (Oliver, 1997).
4.3.1.2Brand Loyalty Measurements

The measurementof brand loyalty has been of enduring concern to both academicsand
has
been
different
the
and
subject
marketing practitioners
of many
proposals which are
particular to various fields (Uncles et al., 2003). In spite of the various brand loyalty
measurementssuggestedin marketing literature, no consensus,definitively establishing
how to measurebrand loyalty, is forthcoming (Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2002). These
diverse measurementsof brand loyalty are in part due to the various aspectsof brand
loyalty and the fact that brand loyalty is a very complex construct (Ha, 1998).However, in
general, measurementof brand loyalty has been according to one of the following:
-92-
JNam, 2008
Chapter 4. Literature Review X
behaviouralmeasurements,attitudinal measurements,
and compositemeasurements.
4.3.1.2.1 Behavioural Brand Loyalty Measurements
Many researchers(e.g., Blattberg and Sen, 1974;Kahn et al., 1986; Ehrenberget al., 1990)
havedefined brand loyalty strictly from a behaviouralperspective.A common theme across
this stream of work is the attempt to look for a surrogate behavioural measure to
operationalizebrand loyalty. The major interest of behaviouralmeasuresresidesin the fact
that they measure effective behaviour and consider consistent, repetitious purchase
behaviour as an indicator of loyalty (Odin et al., 2001; Bowen and Chen, 2001).
Behavioural measurementsare based on consumers'behaviour, often, actual purchasing
behaviour,or in other cases,on reportedpurchasingbehaviour,thus classifying consumers
as loyal if they have purchaseda particular brand repeatedly(Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978).
Consequently,while some researchersobservepurchasingpatterns and derive conclusions
based on the proportion of purchasesdevoted to a particular brand, others focus on the
purchase sequence(Odin et al., 2001). The behavioural measurementscan be further
subdivided into brand purchasesequence,brand purchaseproportion and brand purchase
probability.
First of all, Brown (1952) suggestedfour purchase sequencesbased on six consecutive
purchases,namely, undivided loyalty (purchase sequence:AAAAAA),
divided loyalty
(ABABAB), unstable loyalty (AAABBB), and irregular sequences(ABBACDB). Other

authors (e.g., Tucker, 1964; McConnell, 1968) measured brand loyalty in terms of a
criterion of three consecutivepurchases.Classification of customersas loyal occurs when
they have bought the samebrand three times in a row. Another behavioural measureis the
number of brand runs: consecutive sequenceof purchasing the same brand (Frank et al.,
1969).Brand loyalty, thereby, inversely relatesto the number of brand runs within a given
period: the lower the number of brand runs, the stronger the brand loyalty (Jacoby and
Chestnut,1978).The averagelength of brand runs is also proposedby Frank et al. (1969) as
a way of measuringbrand loyalty. Blattberg and Sen (1974) used long purchasesequences
(31 or more consecutive purchases)to measure brand loyalty. They criticized Brown's
-93-
JNam, 2008
Chapter 4. Literature ReviewIZT
(1952) short purchase sequenceas not being suff icient for predicting future purchase.
Second,the proportion of consumption measuresis basedon the actual consumption of

goods or services. This approach usually combines volume, recent amount spent and
frequency of purchase over limited time periods. Examples of this type of repeat buying
measureinclude assessmentof the proportion of consumptionwithin a specific set of other
goods and services located within a defined market or even within nominated retail
locations (East, 1997). The proportion of purchasesof a specific brand as comparedto all
purchasesis used by a number of authors (e.g., Copeland, 1923; Brown, 1952; Lipstein,
1959). A number of different cutoff points are proposed, ranging from the exclusive
purchase(100%) to about 50% purchaseshare.The higher the percentageis, the stronger
the customer's loyalty to a particular brand. Cunningham(1956) extendedthe concept of
one-brand loyalty to dual-brand or triple-brand loyalties, with loyalty defined as the
percentageof total purchasesdevotedto the top two or three brands.
Third, the measure of repeat purchaseprobability is based on calculation of a series of
previous purchases (Oppermann, 2000). For example, Frank (1962) showed direct
relationships between both the number of previous purchaseswithin a purchasesequence
future
location
these
the
the
of
a
probability
of
and
purchaseswithin the sequenceand
repeatpurchase.Researchdemonstratedthat the more often a consumerpurchasesthe same
brand within a purchasesequence,as well as the more recentthe purchaseof that particular
brand,the higher the probability for repurchaseof that brand. However, the probability of a
repeat purchase reduces as the number of products bought in the same generic product
category increases.This is due to the longer time span and the increasedopportunitiesthe
consumerhasto try competing brands(Day, 1969).
4.3.1.2.2Attitudinal
Brand Loyalty Measurements
Proponentsof attitudinal measuresarguedthat the behaviouralmeasuresdo not distinguish

betweenintentional loyalty and spurious loyalty. The latter type of buyers may lack any
commitmentto the brand but simply buy becauseof time convenience,monetary rewards,
lack of substitutesor lack of information on substitutes(Oppermann,2000). Furthermore,
-94-
JNam, 2008
the rationale underlying the attitudinal measureis that behavioural measuresof brand
loyalty are unable to offer an understandingof the factors causing the progressof brand
loyalty. Attitudinal brand loyalty measuresare an attempt on the part of consumersto go
beyond overt behaviour and express their brand loyalty in terms of psychological
commitment or statement of preference (Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Thus, attitudinal
inherent
in
data
that
the
attachment
emotional
and
psychological
measuresuse
reflects
loyalty (Bowen and Chen, 2001). Attitudinal brand loyalty measuresare basedon stated
brand preference, brand commitment or intention to purchase (Mellens et al., 1996;
Bennett and Rundle-Thiele,2002).
One of the earliest uses of attitudinal measurementsis Guest's (1942) brand preference
brand
judged
be
loyal
that they namedwhen asked,
to
to
the
consumers
study,whereby
are
"Which brand do you prefer?" Later, Guest (1955) proposedthat a positive attitude needs
to exist over time. Thus, he realized that a favourable attitude at one point in time is
insufficient, that a person needs to maintain an attitude for several years (Oppermann,
1999). Other measuresconcernthe distancebetweenacceptanceand rejection (of brands)
loyalty
(e.
1972),
(e.
Bennett
Kassarijian,
g., Jarvis and Wilcox,
and
cognitive
regions g.,
1976),commitment (e.g., Beatty and Kahle, 1988),and intention to purchase(e.g., Byrnes,
1964; Juster, 1966; Zeithaml et al., 1996; Bloemer et al., 1999; Lee and Cunningham,
2001). Bennett and Kassarijian (1972) described loyalty in terms of acceptanceand
in
brands
along
a
continuum
of
preference
which purchasing
with
scaled
rejection regions,
tendenciesreflect zones of acceptance,neutrality, or rejection. The greater,the distance
betweenpreferencezones is, the greaterthe degreeof attitudinal brand loyalty (Pritchard
(1976)
Jarvis
Wilcox
1992).
Building
this
and
used the ratio of accepted
work,
et al.,
on
and rejected brands in concert with a weighted index of brand awarenessto define
cognitive loyalty. In particular, Zeithaml et al. (1996) and Bloemer et al. (1999) used a
comprehensive,multi-dimensional scale consisting of word-of-mouth communications,
purchaseintention, price sensitivity and complaining behaviour to measure customer's
loyalty. Even though a number of different attitudinal brand loyalty measureshave been
proposed,Pritchard et al. (1992) suggestedthat psychometrically sound instruments to
measureattitudinal brand loyalty remain absent.
-95-
JNam. 2008
4.3.1.2.3 Composite Brand Loyalty Measurements
Composite measures of brand loyalty integrating both behavioural and attitudinal

measurementsincrease the predictive power of brand loyalty (Pritchard and Howard,
1997; Oppermann,1997). The compositemeasurementhas beenapplied and supportedas
a valuabletool to understandbrand loyalty in severalfields (Bowen and Chen,2001).
One of the early proponents,Day (1969), arguedthat in order to be truly loyal, a consumer
must both purchase the brand as well as have a positive attitude toward it which
constitutesDay's (1969) loyalty index: the ratio of the proportion of purchasesdevotedto
brand x to the initial attitude toward brand x. However, Day (1969) recognized several
problems with this approach: First, while weights attach to both proportion of purchases
and attitude, the exact, assignedweight is not obvious. Second,the index combinesa onetime estimate (attitude) with an interval estimate (purchase probability). Thus, the
possibility remains that the attitude component of the brand loyalty score may not be
accurate during some of the time period required to estimate the purchase probability
(Oppermann,1997).
Other compositeloyalty measuresinclude price until switching, statedbrand commitment,

and information search.Although compositemeasurementsseemto be very attractive and
most comprehensive,few of these have followers, and only Day (1969)'s loyalty index
appearsto have been applied in several settings (Oppermann, 1997). However, as noted
above, becauseof weighting applied to both behavioural and attitudinal components,as
well as to the various componentswithin eachof those,composite loyalty measurementis
not very practical (Oppen-nann,2000).
4.3.1.3Critique of Brand Loyalty Measurement

The classicview of loyalty is that it is an abstractionwhich is difficult to define due to the
fact that loyalty is a very complex constructand various aspectsof brand loyalty exist (Ha,
1998). Abstraction has caused inherent criticisms of three brand loyalty measurements:
-96-
Chqj2ter4. Literature ReviewN
JNam. 2008
behavioural,attitudinal and composite.

Behavioural measureshave received criticism on a number of accounts,ranging from the
arbitrary nature of the cut-off criterion for loyalty, the simplistic nature of just using
behavioural expression, to the lack of investigating factors that underlie disloyalty, etc.
(Oppermann,1999). The processingof behaviouralmeasurementoccurs in a dichotomous
way - loyalty vs. disloyalty - which is singularly short of nuance, and requires a very
arbitraryjudgment for allocating a consumerto one or the other of the two categories(Odin
et al., 2001). As an example, Figure 4.3 presentsthe loyalty for four consumers,according
to two behaviouralmeasurementmethods.
Figure 4.3: Heterogeneityof ResultsUsing Two Different Behavioural Measurementsof
Brand Loyalty
I
ConsumerII
AABAABAABA
j Disloyal
Consumer3
Consumer2
BCDEFGHAAA
AABAACAADA
Loyal
Consumer
IAABAACAAAD
I
I
i
I
Loyal
Loyal
Loyal
I
Disloyal
III
Loyal
Disloyal
<3 in the purchasesequence> I

definition
<Proportion of purchase>
definition
Source: Odin et al. (2001, p.77)

As noted in behavioural measurement,Cunningham(1956) measuredbrand loyalty by the
purchaseproportion of the samebrand in the samesequenceof purchases.The problem of
-97-
JNam. 2008
ChaDter4. Literature Review
this measureis that it fixes an arbitrary loyalty threshold: When the purchaseproportion
devoted to the same brand is above 50%, the author estimatesexistence of brand loyalty
(Odin et al., 2001). Following a slightly different approach,Tucker (1964) and McConnell
(1968) suggestedthe criteria of three consecutivepurchases:The consumer is brand-loyal
when the sequenceof purchaseincludes,consecutively,three identical brands.As shown in
Figure 4.3, the measurementmethodsused in this example do not converge to render the
same result: As an example, Consumer I is loyal in the framework of the proportion of
purchase,but disloyal using the "3 in the purchasesequence"procedure(Odin et al., 2001).
The debateis that the behaviouralmeasurementlacks a conceptualstandpointand produces
only the static outcome of a dynamic process(Dick and Basu, 1994). This measurement
does not attempt to explain the factors that affect brand loyalty and simply estimates
frequencies with no examination of the reasonsfor purchases or the factors that may
influence choices (Dick and Basu, 1994). Behavioural measurementsdo not enable the
researcherto discern whether or not repeatbuying is from habit, for situational reasons,or
for more complex psychological reasons(Odin et al., 2001). Namely, in the behavioural
measurement,brand loyalty for a hotel or restaurantmay not be enoughto explain why and
how customersare willing to revisit or make a recommendationto other potential customers
(Yoon and Uysal, 2005).
Attitudinal measuresallow circumvention of a certain amount of criticism addressedto
behaviouralmeasures.In the first place, most of them are constructedaround interval-type
scales,which facilitate data collection. Moreover, attitudinal scalesare no longer basedon a
loyal/disloyalty, oppositional construct, but on a degreeof loyalty: thus, the goal is not to
know whether an individual is absolutely loyal or not, but to know the intensity of loyalty to
a product or brand. The nuanceof this type of scale is, therefore, far more important (Odin
et al., 2001). Despite these advantages,this type of scale suffers from some major
drawbacks. The criticism bestowed on attitudinal measures is that they only rely on
consumerdeclarations,and not on observedbehaviour(Odin et al., 2001).
According to Jacoby and Chestnut (1978), data collected on the validity of attitudinal
-98-
2008
-Nam.
ChqRter 4. Literature Review
measureshave not been encouraging,and the measuresused in one investigation did not
significantly relate with other constructs such as brand commitment, perceived product
importanceand perceived risk. Pritchard et al. (1992) also proposedthat psychometrically
soundinstrumentsto measureattitudinal loyalty remain absent.
To measureattitudinal loyalty, most researchinstrumentsuse a whole battery of questions,
making questionnairesvery lengthy. In addition, to what extent attitudes changeover time
has not yet been explored (Oppermann,2000). Even Guest (1955) suggesteda positive
attitude needsto exist over time; a person needsto maintain such an attitude for several
years. Attitudinal measurementshave been the focus of cross-sectionaldata rather than
longitudinal evaluation of such attitudes. This is in contrast to the behavioural measures
which almost exclusively rely on longitudinal data(Oppermann,1999).
Composite measurementis an integration of behavioural and attitudinal measurements
(Backman and Crompton, 1991). The argument is that customerswho purchaseand have
loyalty to particular brands must have a positive attitude toward those brands (Yoon and
Uysal,
2005).
Composite measurement provides the
expectation of
greatest
comprehensivenessand greatest allowance for accuracy in findings. Although composite

measurementof loyalty seemsto be very attractive, it also has serious inherent limitations,
simply becauseof the weighting applied to both behaviouraland attitudinal components,as
well as, to the various sub-componentswithin eachof those major components.Oppermann
(2000) noted that composite measurementis not necessarily the most practical. Due to
resourceand logistical constraints,compositemeasurementis not always possible (RundleThiele and Bennett,2001).
4.3.1.4Brand Loyalty in the Hospitality Industry

Many hospitality firms are having difficulty increasingtheir market sharesbecauseof rising
international competition, slower growth rates, decreasedpopulation growth, oversupply
and mature markets (Tcpcci, 1999). Hospitality firms may increasesales and their market
shares by decreasing prices, expanding distribution channels, launching promotional
-99-
Chqpter 4. Literature ReviewN
JNam. 2008
campaigns,and retaining current customers(Cravens,2003). Among these strategies,brand

loyalty strategieswould be a more profitable approachbecausethe hospitality businessas a
mature industry must pursue market share gains, rather than market growth gains (Jarvis
and Mayo, 1986).Acquiring new customersis expensivebecauseof advertising, promotion
and start-up operating costs; serving current customers is cheaper (Reichheld, 1996).
Therefore, brand-loyal customers can contribute a great deal to the bottom line of a
hospitality company (Tepeci, 1999).
4.3.1.4.1Brand Loyalty Research in the Hospitality Industry

Previous researchrecommendedthat loyal customersspend more than non-loyal
customers,act as advocatesfor a brand by engagingin positive word-of-mouth,and
are,therefore,at the heart of a firm's most valuablecustomergroup (Russell-Bennett
et al., 2007). Retainingcustomersin the hospitalityindustryhasalsobecomeincreasingly
importantbecausethe industryis very competitiveand is in its maturestage(Lewis and
Chambers,2000).Numerouspractitionersandacademicsin the hospitalityindustryhave
benefits
brand
loyalty,
the
customers'
and
maintaining
existing
and
recognized
of creating
brand loyalty have drawn renewedresearchattentionin recentyears (Le and Petrick,
2008).
Getty and Thompson (1994) studiedrelationshipsbetweenquality of lodging, satisfaction,
and the resulting effect on customers' intentions to recommend the lodging to other
prospectivecustomers.Their findings suggestedthat customers' intentions to recommend
are a function of their perception of both their satisfaction and service quality with the
lodging experience. Hence, they concluded that both service quality and customer
satisfactionhave a positive effect on customerloyalty.
Heung et al. (1996) investigated hotel brand loyalty in the free independenttraveller's
market.They adoptedfour brand loyalty categories:hard-core,soft-core, shifting loyal and
switchers,and comparedthe four segments.Their resultsindicated that older travelerstend
to be more brand loyal than younger travelers.Furthermore,frequent businesstravelersare
100-
Chgpter 4. Literature ReviewIZT
JNam. 2008
more brand loyal than occasionaltravelers.

Bowen and Shoemaker(1998) identified the economicsof customer loyalty applied to the
luxury hotel segment.In a study of American ExpressPlatinum Card holders, who take at
least six overnight businesstrip per year to luxury hotels, the researchersfound that loyal
customers are less likely to ask about price when making a reservation, and they also
purchaseother hotel services(e.g., laundry and restaurantmeals) more frequently at hotels
to which they feel loyal, as comparedto purchasesat hotelswhere little loyal is in play.
Clark and Wood (1998) explored factors relevant to engendering consumer loyalty in
restaurantchoice. Findings suggestedthat the quality and range or types of food are key
deten-ninantsin consumerloyalty. Additionally, tangible rather than intangible factors are of
greaterimportancein consumerloyalty.
Kandampully and Suhartanto(2000) examinedthe relationship between customer loyalty
and the two prerequisites: customer satisfaction and image in the hotel industry. The
findings showed that hotel image and customer satisfaction with food and beverage,
reception,housekeeping,and price are important factors in determining customerloyalty.
Back and Parks (2003) investigatedthe mediating effects of attitudinal brand loyalty on
the relationship between customer satisfaction and behavioural brand loyalty. Moreover,
they developed a robust brand loyalty measurementfor the lodging industry by using
attitudinal and behavioural brand loyalty constructs. The result of this investigation
suggestedthat customer satisfaction has a significantly indirect effect on behavioural
brand loyalty when mediated by attitudinal brand loyalty including cognitive-affectiveconativebrand loyalty stages.
Another study by Back (2005) explored the effects of image congruenceon customers'
post-purchasing behaviours focusing specifically on customer satisfaction and brand
loyalty in the lodging industry, The key findings of this study indicated that social and
ideal social image congruencehave significantly direct effects on customer satisfaction
and indirect effects on attitudinal brand loyalty.
101.
JNam. 2008
Chgj2ter4. Literature ReviewRT
Reich et al. (2005) examined the impact of product quality and service quality on brand
loyalty for quick-service restaurants.The results showed that quick-service restaurants
need to be more concerned with product quality especially taste, freshness, and
temperature,and focus on their overall servicequality to build brand loyalty. In addition,
the resultsfrom correlation tests showedthat brand loyalty for one brand may affect brand
loyalty towards anotherbrand.
Recently, Kim et al. (2007) investigatedthe effect of co-branding on customer

satisfaction,which in turn leadsto brand loyalty in the restaurantindustry. The result
indicatedthat sometypes of co-branding(i.e., price benefitsandpost-purchaseservices)
can be an effective marketing strategythat allows restaurantsto construct customer
satisfactionandbrandloyalty.
Although both researchersand practitioners recognizedthe importanceof brand loyalty in
hospitality, compared to brand loyalty researchinvolving merchandise,studies on brand
loyalty in service markets, such as hospitality, are still far from sufficient. In addition,
numerous variables have been suggestedas plausible antecedentsof brand loyalty, but
brand equity's determinant for customers'loyalty to a brand is not yet well understoodin
the hospitality settings.
4.3.1.4.2 Measurements of Brand Loyalty in the Hospitality Industry

The debateregarding the definition of brand loyalty and its subsequentmeasurementhas
occupied academic thought for over 30 years. However, commonly acknowledged in the
literature is that the ma ority of brand loyalty measures categorize into behavioural,
attitudinal or composite measurements(Day, 1969; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978; Mellens et
al., 1996; Farr and Hollis, 1997; Baldinger and Rubinson, 1997). Moreover, apparently,
brand loyalty measurementvaries acrossmarket types (Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001).
Rundle-Thieleand Bennett (2001) suggestedthat the type of market should drive the choice
of brand loyalty measuresused.
-102-
JNam. 2008
A review of the loyalty literature revealsthat the measurementof brand loyalty is different
for consumablegoods markets,durable goodsmarketsand service markets.This difference
is largely attributable to the difference in market characteristics,namely brand switching,
purchasefrequency,loyalty types, shareof category,proportion of sole buyers, commitment,
intention to purchase, perceived risk, inertia, habit, satisfaction and involvement. The
categoriesof consurnables,durablesand servicesare mutually exclusive categoriesas the
market characteristicsdiffer betweeneachmarket type (Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001).
Table 4.9 summarizesbrand loyalty characteristicsaccording to the loyalty measurement
approachesof eachmarket types.
Table 4.9: Summaryof Brand Loyalty Characteristicsand Measures
Consurnables
Durables
BrandSwitching
Yes
No
No
frequency
Purchase
High
Low
Mediumto high
Loyaltytype
Multi-brand
Solebrand
Services
BehaviouralLoyalty
Shareof category(%)
Variesfrom I to 60
100
Proportionof solebuyers Between10and30 depending
onnumberof brands
Soleor dualbrand
Typically80or higher
Approximately
80
Attitudinal Loyalty
Commitment
Varied
Not known
Higher
Purchaseintention
Varied
Not known
Higher
Perceivedrisk
No
Yes
Yes
Inertia
No
No
Yes
Habit
Yes
No
Yes
Involvement
Low
High
High
Satisfaction
Varied
Not known
High
Relationshipwith
Product/serviceprovider
Low
Not known
High
Loyalty Drivers
Source: Adapted from Rundle-Thiele and Bennett (2001, p. 32)
As shown Table 4.9, service markets have many brand loyalty characteristicscomparedto
-103-
JNam. 2008
Chqpter 4. Literature ReviewIZT

.
consumableand durable goodsmarkets.Servicesare performances,rather than objects:The

former cannot be seen, felt, tasted or touched in the samemanner in which goods can be
sensed(Zeithaml et al., 1985). Inseparability,intangibility, heterogeneityand perishability
are the four characteristicsmost commonly used by researchersto differentiate between
goods and services (e.g., Berry, 1980; Parasuramanet al., 1985; McGuire, 1999). Since
services are intangible and heterogeneous,most customers will perceive higher risk in
services than in goods. As perceived risk of a certain brand increases,the likelihood of
loyalty to that brand increases(Javalgi and Moberg, 1997).Researchdemonstratesa strong
correlation betweenperceived risk and brand loyalty (Bauer, 1960). Researchinto risk also
supportsthis (e.g., Cunningham, 1956; Sheth and Venkatesan,1968; Roselius, 1971). The
implications of perceivedhigh-risk on brand loyalty are also that purchasersof servicestend
to be less likely to switch brand in order to minimize the perceivedrisk (Rundle-Thiele and
Bennett,2001).
In servicemarkets,relationshipsform a crucial part of the ongoing relationship betweenthe

service provider and customer (Caldow, 1998). Consumersmay be more likely to remain
loyal after they have establisheda relationshipwith the serviceprovider. And, brand loyalty
in service markets reflects inertia (Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001). The role of affect in
brand loyalty is very important (Dick and Basu, 1994; Gremler and Brown, 1998). In
particular, the construct of satisfaction plays a key role in determining future patronageof
the serviceprovider (Rundle-Thieleand Bennett,2001). Moreover, in any given time period,
a customertypically does not sharepurchasesfor a product among a repertoire of brands
and are solely or dually brand loyal. That is, customerstypically designatea high shareto a
categoryof a given brand (Rundle-Thieleand Mackay,2001).
Ideally, all brand loyalty research should incorporate both attitudinal and behavioural
measures,as they are both complementaryaspectsof the one construct. However, due to
resourceand logistical constraints,this is not always possible, and thus, researchincludes
only one measure.The variation betweenthe characteristicsof each market indicates that
the measuresused to capture brand loyalty should be very different. These characteristics
indicate that in service markets many customers are loyal according to the behavioural
-104-
Chqj2ter4. Literature ReviewN
JNam. 2008
definition of loyalty due to a high share of category requirements despite intentions to

changeto a competing service during the next month. This indicatesthat attitudinal loyalty
behavioural
loyalty
in
Moreover,
statistics
collecting
measuresare useful service markets.
long
brand-switching
be
time
difficult
in
Examining
patterns
requires
can
service markets.
degree
is
high
in
And,
the
stable
and
where
of
a
market
periods.
consumablemarketswhere
for
behavioural
low
involvement
measures
are
appropriate
and risk occur,
switching and
predicting brand loyalty levels; while in unstablemarkets,a propensity exists towards sole
brandsand high involvement and risk; then, attitudinal measuresmay be better predictorsof
brand loyalty. Consequently, as high incidences of sole loyalty are present in service
brand
loyalty
(Rundlebe
better
loyalty
of
predictors
markets, attitudinal
measuresmay
Thiele and Mackay, 2001; Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001). The hospitality industry is
industries
has
thus,
the
other
with
service
similar characteristics
service market, and
part of
in the service sector. After considering various suggestions,the present researchadopts
attitudinal loyalty measures.
4.4 Customer Satisfaction

Customersatisfactionis one of the most widely researchedtopics in marketingand
fundamental
is
2006).
It
Quester,
(Pappu
to the marketingconcept:
and
consumerresearch
(Sprenget al., 1996)andis one
the notionof satisfyingthe needsanddesiresof consumers
in
firm
important
the
activities
a
market-oriented
of
all
marketing
outcomes
most
of
(Kandampullyand Suhartanto,2000).Becausesatisfiedcustomersare keys to long-term
businesssuccess,both academicsand practitionersalso recognizedthe importanceof
has
been
Generally,
Suh,
2000).
(Jones
customer
satisfaction
and
customersatisfaction
deemedto affect customer loyalty and a company'smarket share (Hansemarkand
Albinsson,2004), and satisfiedcustomersare thought to be less price sensitive,less
influencedby competitors,buy additional products or brands and stay loyal longer
(Dimitriades,2006). Becausecustomersatisfactionhas beentraditionally regardedas a
fundamentaldeterminantof long-term consumerbehaviour,much of the researchon
customersatisfactionandcustomers'actualbehaviourfocusedon the relationshipbetween
-105-
JNam. 2008
satisfactionand loyalty (Cooil et al., 2007). Not surprisingly,many practical and theoretical
models of customer loyalty have explored satisfactionas a key determinant in customers'
decisionsto keep or drop a brand, that is, continueor discontinue,a given product or brand
relationship(Ha, 2006).
4.4.1 Definitions of Customer Satisfaction

From severalstudies,customersatisfactionis a well-known and establishedconcept,and in
marketing and consumer research, customer satisfaction is the basis for describing
differences between specific alternatives and brands (Yi, 1990; Andreassen, 1994).
Although customer satisfaction has acceptanceas an important facet of marketing and
definition
for
(Rogerset al.,
the
concept's
consumerresearch,no general agreementexists
1992).A review of existing literature showsthe lack of a consensusfor a definition among
inconsistency
definitional
basic
(Giese
Cote,
2000).
First,
surroundsthe
researchers
a
and
debate over whether or not customer satisfaction is a process or an outcome. Consumer
satisfaction definitions either emphasize an evaluation process or a response to an
evaluation process. Second, a discrepancy remains concerning the nature of customer
satisfaction.Researchersrepresentedcustomersatisfactionas either a cognitive responseor
in
disagreement
Finally,
the tenns. Researchersused
a
occurs
an affective response.
discrepant terms to mean satisfaction: consumer satisfaction, customer satisfaction, or
interchangeable
in
These
terms
their use (Gieseand Cote,
are
somewhat
simply, satisfaction.
2000). Table 4.10 shows some of the existing definitions of customer satisfaction in
marketingand consumerbehaviour literature.
-106-
Chgj2ter4. Literature ReviewIZT
JNam. 2008
Table 4.10: Definitions of CustomerSatisfaction

Author and Source
Definition
Howard and Sheth(1969)
The buyer's cognitive state of being adequately or inadequately

rewardedfor the sacrificeshe hasundergone
Westbrook(1980)
The favorabilityof the individual'ssubjectiveevaluationof the various

outcomesand experiencesassociatedwith using or consumingthe
product
Swan et al. (1981)
A consciousevaluationor cognitive judgment that the product has

performedrelativelywell or poorly or that the productwas suitableor
unsuitablefor its use/purpose
Engel and Blackwell (1982)
An evaluationrenderedthat the consumptionexperiencewasat leastas

goodas it wassupposedto be with respectto alternatives
Churc hill and Surprenant(1982)
An outcome of purchase and use resulting from the buyer's

comparisonof the rewards and costs of the purchaserelative to
anticipatedconsequences
Westbrook(1987)
Globalevaluativejudgmentaboutproductusage/consumption
Tseand Wilton (1988)
The consumer's response to the evaluation of the perceived

discrepancybetweenprior expectationsand the actualperformanceof
the productsasperceivedafter its consumption
Engel et al. (1990)
The outcomeof the subjectiveevaluationthat the chosenalternative

meetsor exceedsexpectations
Gulledge (1990)
A resultof whatthe customerthinks will happeninteractingwith what

the customerthinksdid happen
Yi(1990)
The customer's response to the assessmentof the perceived

discrepancybetweensomecomparisonstandards,suchas expectation,
andthe perceivedperformanceof the productor service
Westbrookand Oliver (1991)
A post-choiceevaluativejudgment concerning a specific purchase

selection
A customer'soverall experienceto date with a product or service
provider
Johnsonand Fornell (1991)

Andersonet al. (1994)
An overall evaluationbasedon the total purchaseand consumption

experiencewith a goodor serviceover time
Halsteadet al. (1994)
A transaction-specific
affectiveresponseresultingfrom the customer's
comparisonof productperformanceto somepre-purchase
standard
Walker(1995)
The result of a subjectivecomparisonbetweenexpectedand perceived

attributelevels
Oliver (1997)
The summary psychological state resulting when the emotion

surroundingdisconfirmedexpectationsis coupledwith the consumer's
prior feeling aboutthe consumptionexperience
-107-
JNam. 2008
As Table 4.10 shows, the number of definitions of customer satisfaction is considerable.

Despite the existence of many ways to define customer satisfaction, apparently the
definition receiving widest acceptance is that customer satisfaction is a post-choice
evaluativejudgment concerninga specific purchaseselection(Selnes,1993).
4.4.2 Different Types of Satisfaction Evaluations

Customer satisfaction is a complex construct receiving broad attention in marketing
literature (Giese and Cote, 2000). While the theory and practice of customer satisfaction
decades,
debate
during
have
three
the
tremendous
past
evaluations
made
advances
continues concerning the best way to conceptualizeand measure customer satisfaction
(Boulding et al., 1993). In this light, not surprisingly, hundredsof articles conceptualizing
(Jones
Suh,
2000).
Despite
have
the
and
and measuringcustomer satisfaction
proliferated
important debatein customersatisfactionliterature,customersatisfactionresearchgenerally
encompassesthree different types of evaluations.Some researchersargued that customer
satisfaction is a transaction-specific evaluation. Another researcher views customer
satisfaction as an overall evaluation based on the total of purchase, consumption and
has
in
Other
terms of
that
satisfaction
evaluation
customer
researchers
proposed
experience.
whether the product or brand meetsconsumerneedsand expectations(Pappuand Quester,
2006).
4.4.2.1Transaction-SpecificSatisfaction
Bitner and Hubbert (1994) proposed that transaction-specific satisfaction refers to the
consumer's dissatisfaction or satisfaction with a discrete encounter. Transaction-specific
satisfaction is an immediate post-purchaseevaluativejudgment or an affective reaction to
the most recent transactional experiencewith the firrn (Oliver, 1993). The transactional
approachemphasizesencountersatisfaction,that is, satisfactionin a single transaction(Host
and Knie-Andersen,2004), and consumersare likely to comment on particular events of a
transaction when asked about transaction-specific satisfaction (e.g., specific employee
-108-
JNam. 2008
actions)(Jonesand Suh, 2000). Becausetransaction-specif

ic satisfactionrelatesto a specific
encounter with the organization and may vary from experience to experience, it may
provide specific diagnostic information abouta particular encounter(Aydin and Ozer,2005).
This perspective is consistent with the idea that every service consumption is a new
experience.Becauseof the variability associatedwith service delivery and consumption,
transaction-specificsatisfactionmay be more meaningful in someresearchareas(Matsuoka
et al., 2003).
4.4.2.2 Overall Satisfaction
Bitner and Hibbert (1994) defined overall satisfactionas the consumer'soverall satisfaction
or dissatisfactionwith the organization basedon all encountersand experienceswith that
particular organization. Since overall satisfaction information arises from all previous
experienceswith the particular provider, it is a function of all previous transaction-specific
satisfaction (Teas, 1993; Parasuramanet al., 1994). Overall satisfaction may refer to many
transactionsor just a few, depending on the number of times the consumer has used a
be
based
(Jones
Suh,
2000).
Overall
time,
t,
satisfaction
at
will
on
particular provider
and
overall satisfactionat time, t-1, which reflects all previous transaction-specificsatisfactions,
as well as the transaction-specificsatisfactionthat resulted from the information collected
from the most recent transactionproduced at time, t (Boulding et al., 1993). Thus, overall
satisfactionupdatesafter each encounterand is an aggregationof all previous transactionspecific satisfaction(Veloutsouet al., 2005).
Whereas,transaction-specificsatisfaction is likely to vary from experienceto experience,
causingvarying levels; overall satisfactionis a moving averagethat is relatively stable and
most similar to an overall attitude (Auh et al., 2003). Overall satisfaction is more like a
stored evaluation in one's memory than an on-the-spotevaluation (Gilbert and Veloutsou,
2006). For example, a consumer may have a dissatisfying experience in one episode
(transaction-specificsatisfaction) yet still be satisfied with a provider as a whole (overall
satisfaction), due to multiple previous satisfactory encounters (Jones and Suh, 2000).
Although transaction-specific satisfaction evaluation may provide specific diagnostic
-109-
JNam. 2008
information about a particular encounter, overall satisfaction is a more fundamental

indicator of the firm's past, current and future performance(Anderson et al., 1994). An
important advantageof overall satisfactionover a more transaction-specificview is that it is
better able to predict subsequentbehaviours and economic performance (Fornell et al.,
1996).This is becausecustomersmake repurchaseevaluationsand decisions basedon their
purchaseand consumption experienceto date, not just a particular transaction or episode
(Johnsonet al., 2001).
4.4.2.3 Expectancy-Dis confirmation Paradigm

Although a variety of theories and approachesto understandsatisfactionexist, the generally
accepted and most widely applied tool for conceptualizing and evaluating customer
satisfaction is Oliver's (1980) expectancy-disconfirmationmodel, which views satisfaction
with products or brands as a result of two cognitive variables: pre-purchaseexpectations
and post-purchaseperceptions.Basedon this model, the influenceson customersatisfaction
are two factors: perceived performance and expectation. Perceived performance is
consumers'Perceptionsafter consumptionand expectationis the desiresof customers,more
specifically what they believe a product or brand should or will be (Zeithaml and Bitner,
1996).Hung et al. (2003) suggestedthat understandingcustomers'expectationsis necessary
to achievehigh customer satisfaction.Customersatisfactionobviously dependsupon initial
expectation levels, and if consumers already have high expectations, then satisfying
customerscan be a very difficult task (Evanset al., 2006).
The expectancy-disconfirmationmodel assumesthat satisfaction or dissatisfaction is a
function of the relationship betweencustomerexpectationsand the extent to which theseare
either confirmed or disconfirmed by actual experience(Hemmington and Watson, 2002).
Briefly stated, if the customer's perception of the encounter matches the expectation,the
result is confirmed expectation and customer satisfaction. If perception and expectation
differ, the expectation is disconfirmed and the customer may be variously satisfied or
dissatisfied (Hoffman and John, 2002). Figure 4.4 shows the expectancy-disconfirmation
model of customersatisfaction.
-110-
JNam. 2008
Figure 4.4: Expectancy-DisconfirmationModel of CustomerSatisfaction
Perceived Performance (P)
Expected Perfonnance (E)
Al--
Comparison
P>E
Positive Disconfirmation
Satisfaction
P=E
P<E
Confirmation
Negative Disconfirmation
Satisfaction
Dissatisfaction
Source: Adapted from Walker (1995, p.7)

As Figure 4.4 shows,the customer'sjudgment of satisfactionor dissatisfactiontakesone of
three different forms. Although the word disconfirmation soundslike a negativeexperience,
it is not necessarilyso. If perceivedperformancesare poorer than customers'expectations,
negative disconfirmation occurs, which results in dissatisfaction.Positive disconfirmation,
on the other hand, exists when perceived performances are better than customers'
expectations.This situation leadsto satisfactionor a pleasurablelevel of fulfillment. Finally,
confirmation takes place when perceived performance matches customers' expectations.
The expectancy-disconfirmation model can be an equation: customer perceived
performance minus customer expectation yields satisfaction level. Thus, confirmation
produces greater satisfaction than exists following negative disconfirmation. Positive
disconfirmation evokes the highest levels of satisfaction (Hoffman and Bateson, 1997;
Hernmingtonet al., 2005; Blackwell et al., 2006).
III
-
Chapter4. LiteratureReviewZY
JNam,2008
4.5 Value for Money

The value for money has not received as much attention in marketing literature as other
constructssuch as service quality and customersatisfaction(Bojanic, 1996). Only recently,
however, both marketing scholars and practitioners began to recognize the influence that
is
for
behaviour,
for
has
money
emerging as a strategic
value
and value
money
on customer
imperative (Petrick and Backman, 2002; Lin and Wang, 2006). Research evidence
suggestedthat customers who perceived that they received value for money are more
satisfied than customerswho do not perceived that they received value for money. Also
for
by
be
consumersto "bundle" various aspects of the service
value
money may
used
2000).
Knowing
Levesque,
(McDougall
to
where value
relative competitive offerings
and
for money resides from the standpoint of customershas become critical for marketing
for
lead
levels
because
to positive wordmoney
value
and
practitioners,
greater
of
scholars
loyalty,
levels
brand
a stronger competitive position,
of-mouth communication, greater
of
2001).
Particularly,
Chacour,
higher
(Ulaga
many
and
and, ultimately,
market share
loyalty
it
is
it
links
brand
have
for
is
important
to
that
as
as
argued
researchers
value
money
loyalty
(Parasuraman
Grewal,
2000).
key
determinant
brand
and
of
widely acceptedas a
4.5.1 Derinitions of Value for Money

The value for money has been widely used in various disciplines, such as economics,
accounting, finance, strategy, production management, and marketing. In marketing
literature, researchersseemedto use different terminologies when referring the value for
money such as customer value, consumer value, consumption value or perceived value;
however,in actuality, all of the terms eventually refer to the samething (Ulaga and Chacour,
2001). Furthermore, despite the increasing attention being focused on value for money,
because
for
definitions
this term typically
still
are
rather
ambiguous,
most
money
of value
relies on otherterms such as utility, worth, benefits, and quality which are too often notwell
defined (Jensen,2001). Consequently,a myriad of competing definitions exist for value for
money in the literature.Table 4.11 presentsan overview of definitions of value for money.
-112-
Chypter 4. Literature Review
JAlam. 2008
Table 4.11: Dcf initions of Valuefor Money

Definition
Author and Source

I lauscr and Urban (1986)
The surplusof utility overprice.
Zeithaml(1988)
Consumers'overallassessment
of the utility of a productbasedon
perceptionsof what is received and what is given. In her
definition, Zeithaml (1988) consideredthe following definitions:
(1) valueis low price,(2) valueis whateverthe consumerwantsin
a product,(3) value is the quality the consumergets for the price,
and/or(4) valueis whattheconsumergetsfor what they receive.
Monroe (1990)
Trade-offbetweenthe quality or benefitsperceivedfor the product

relativeto the sacrificeperceivedby payingthe price.
Andersonct al. (1993)
The perceivedworth in monetaryunits of the set of economic,

technical,serviceand social benefitsreceivedby a customerfirm
in exchange for the price paid for a product, taking into
considerationthe availablesuppliers'offeringsand prices.
Gale (1994)
Market perceivedquality adjusted for the relative price of the

productoffered.
Woodruff and Gardial (1996)
Customers'perceptionof what they want to have happen(i. e. the

in a specific use situation, with the help of a
consequences)
product or service offering, in order to accomplish a desired
purposeor goal.
Woodruff (1997)
Customer's perceived preference for and evaluation of those

product attributes, attribute performances, and consequences
arising from use that facilitates (or blocks) achieving the
customer'sgoalsandpurposesin usesituations.
Parasuraman
and Grcwal (2000)
A function of a "get" component(the benefits a buyer derives

from a seller's offering) and a "give" component(the buyer's
monetaryandnon-monetarycostsof acquiringthe offering)
Rust ct al. (2000)
Consumer'sobjective assessmentof the utility of a product or

service basedon perceptionsof what is given up for what is
received.
Kotler et al. (2003)
The difference between benefits that the customer gains from

owning and/or using a product and the cost of obtaining the
product.
As Table4.11 shows,the numberof definitionsof value for moneyis considerablein the

literature.Although the literature containsa variety of definitions of value for money, most
dcrinitions presentvalue for money as a tradc-off between benefits and sacrificcs pcrccivcd
-113-
ram.2008
Chanter 4. Literature Review
by customers(Eggert and Ulaga, 2002). Perceivedbeneritsare a combination of physical

attributes, service attributes and technical support available in relation to a particular use
situation (Monroe, 1990). Perceivedsacrifices are sometimesdescribed in monetary terms
(Andcrsonct al., 1993). Other definitions describesacrificcs more broadly. I lowcvcr, what
constitutesvalue for money appearsto be highly personal, idiosyncratic, and may vary
from
widely
one customerto another(McDougall and Levesque,2000).
4.5.2 Measurements of Value for Money

In the field of marketing, the constructof value for money has been identified as one of tile
important
measuresfor gaining competitive edge (Parasuraman,1997). 1lowevcr,
most
difficulties
associatewith measuringvalue for money.Thesedifficultics mainly arise
many
from the richnessof the construct and the wide spectrumof other constructs involvcd in
the formation of value for money (Al-Sabbahy, 2004). Thus, mcasurcmcnt of value for
money varies among researchersand this has made the process of measurementa
difficulties,
in
(Semon,
1998).
Despite
task
these
challenging
and
complicated
general,
for
has
been
following
to
tile
of
value
money
according
one
of
ways: global
measurement
measurementand dimension-bascdmeasurement.
4.5.2.1Global Measurement
Value for money is most commonly measuredby using a scif-rcportcd, unidimcnsional
for
to
the
value
asking
respondents
rate
money they received for their purchases
measure
(e.g., the restaurantis good/badvalue for money) (Gale, 1994). 1lowcvcr, this sclf-rcportcd,
unidimensional measure which aims to capture customers' overall value judgment on a
from
two apparentshortcomings(Al-Sabbahy ct al., 2004): 1) It assumes
suffers
statement
that customershave a shared meaning of value for money (Petrick and Backman, 2002).
Zcithaml (1988) suggestedthat quality and value arc not well differentiated from eachother
and from similar constructssuch as perceivedworth and utility. Therefore, the argumentis
that the unidimcnsional measuresof value for money lack validity (Woodruff and Gardial,
114.
Choler 4, Literature Review_N
J]Vam.2008
1996).2) Another inherent problem is unidimensionalmeasuresof value for money result in

the knowledge of rating for value for money,but gives no specific direction for improving
for
in
(Petrick,
2002).
Ilowcvcr,
general, global measurement aims to
value
money
understandthe role of value for money in the bchavioural model either before or afIcr
in
is
Thus,
the
popular
global
measurement
one
most
methods
marketing
purchase.
still
of
research(Al-Sabbahy ct al., 2004).
4.5.2.2Dimension-BasedMeasurement
The central process of value for money originates from the trade-off between two
components: benefits and sacrifices. Most researchers agree that value for moncy is
does
therefore,
the
and
measurement
not capture
use of unidimcnsional
multidimensional,
the dimensions of this construct adequately (Al-Sabbahy ct at., 2004). In response to
shortcomings of unidimcnsional measurement, many researchers recommended that value
for money be measured in terms of dimcnsion-bascd measurement (Lcc ct al., 2007). Table
4.12 shows dimcnsion-bascd measurement of value for money.
115-
Chapter 4, Literature Rgvlew )77
JlVam. 2008
Table 4.12: Dimension-BasedMeasurementof Value for Money

Dinlensions
Author and Source

Shcthct al. (1991)
value -Functional
value
-Socialvalue -Emotional
-Epistemicvalue - Conditionalvalue
Groth ( 1995)
-Cognitivevalue -Psychologicalvalue
-internalvalue
-Externalvalue
Gronroos(1997)
-Cognitivevalue -Emotional(Psychological)value
De Ruyter ct al. (1997)
-Emotionaldimensionor intrinsicvalue
-Functionaldimensionor extrinsicvalue
-Logical dimension
Sweeneyet al. (1999)
-Socialvalue(acceptability) - Emotionalvalue
oFunctionalvalue(price/valuefor money)
-Functionalvalue(performancc/quality)
-Functionalvalue(versatility)
Parasuraman and Grcwal (2000)
-Acquisitionvalue -Transactionvalue
-In-usevalue -Redemptionvalue
Swccncy and Soutar(2001)
-Functionaldimension-Socialdimension*Emotionaldimension
Pctrick (2002)
-Quality -Emotionalresponse -Monetaryprice

price -Reputation
-13chavioural
Grcwal ct al. (1998);

Al-sabbahyct al. (2004)
Acquisitionvalue -Transactionvalue
Source: Adapted from Sanchezct al. (2006, p.396)
As shownin Table 4.12, many researchers

suggesteddifferent dimensionsfor value for
better
for
for
In
the
of
measuring
purpose
and
understanding
value
money,
particular,
money.
dimensions:
have
two
considered
acquisitionvalueandtransactionvalue.
someresearchers
Acquisitionvalue refersto perceivednet gains from the productsor servicescustomers
from
deal
(Lee
to
transaction
perceived
a
mcrits
good
value
refers
arranging
acquire,while
dimensions
had
have
2007).
However,
these
two
since
are
so
similar,
researchers
al.,
ct
difficulty measuringacquisition value and developing a scale that discriminatesit
Backman,
by
from
(Petrick
2002).
Grcwal
Research
transaction
value
and
ct al.
adequately
(1998) had successin the measurementand disentanglementof the dimensionsof
by
transaction
value
measuringthe acquisitionvalue with threestatements
and
acquisition
and the transactionvalue with nine statements(Lee ct al., 2007). Their measureof
-116-
JNam, 2008
Chgpter 4. Literature Review IZT
acquisition value focused on good value for money, while measure of transaction value
focusedon the pleasurethat buyersobtain from finding and taking advantageof a price deal.
Principal components analysis of the scales in two different samples revealed that they
discriminate from each other (Petrick and Backman,2002). This measurementof value for
money, adopted by Al-Sabbahy et al. (2004), is useful, with some modification for
hospitality products.
Similarly, Parasuramanand Grewal (2000) proposedfour dimensionsfor value for money:
defined
in-use
They
transaction,
and redemption values.
acquisition and
acquisition,
transactionvalue similarly to Grewal et al. (1998). In-usevalue is the utility gained from the
usageof the product and/or service, and redemptionvalue is residual gain at the end of the
life of the product or the termination of the service (Lee et al., 2007). As implied by these
definitions, value for money is a dynamic construct in that the relative emphasison each
dimension may change over time. For example, while acquisition and transaction values
occur during and immediately following the purchasestage,in-use and redemption values
take place only during later stagesof product or service usage(Parasuramanand Grewal,
2000).
Although a variety of dimensions of value for money have been recommendedby many
for
accepted
multi-dimensional
no
clear
and
widely
measurement
of
value
researchers,
money yet exists (Lee et al., 2007). However, a common point of these dimension-based
is
measurements that they generally aim to examinethe factors that lie beneaththe value for
direction
how
improve
to
specific
on
value for money (Petrick, 2002). One
money,and give
is
to examine whether or not value for money
the
present
research
of
objectives
of
moderatesthe relationship between brand equity and brand loyalty. As mentioned earlier,
is
that
global measurement appropriate for understandingthe role of
researcherssuggested
in
for
Therefore,
this researchadoptsglobal measurementof
a
research
model.
money
value
value for money.
-117-
Chgpter 4. Literature Review N
JNam. 2008
4.6 Summary
This chapter reviews the antecedents and consequencesof brand equity. Although
considerablebrand equity researchhas been conducted,the antecedentsand consequences
industry.
hospitality
This
divides,
brand
for
the
chapter
well
understood
of
equity remain not
broadly, into four parts: The first part dealswith personalvalues as an antecedentof brand
in
influencing
definition
brief
After
the
of
personal
values
role
of
personal
values,
a
equity.
consumerbehaviour is describedby the means-endchain model along with a review of the
commonly used instrumentsto measurepersonalvalues: RVS, LOV and VALS. Subsequent
to careful considerationof previous research,RVS and LOV are simultaneouslyadoptedto
develops
description
for
The
the
section
second
a
values
present
research.
personal
measure
literature
brand
loyalty
loyalty
brand
The
brand
review
on
as a consequenceof
equity.
of
includes definitions, importance, typology, measurementsand several critiques related
loyalty
Especially,
in
brand
Rundle-Thiele
this
measurement,
parameter.
and
evaluating
Bennett (2001) suggestedclassification of brand loyalty measurementbased on varying
for
brand
They
types.
appropriate
predicting
are
proposed
attitudinal
measures
market
loyalty levels for service markets, such as the hospitality industry, where the market is not
is
brand
high
involvement
toward
the
a
sole
and
propensity
and risk.
stable, and where
Therefore, the present researchadopts attitudinal loyalty measures.The third part of this
The
literature
existing
customer
customer
satisfaction.
satisfaction
chapter reviews
is
judgment
that
this
a
post-choice
evaluative
parameter
agrees
about a purchase
generally
different
In
this
types of satisfaction evaluationssuchas
section
explains
addition,
selection.
transaction-specific,overall satisfaction and expectancy-disconfirmationsatisfaction. The
final section of this chapter, a discussion of value for money literature, involves the
definitions and two different measurements:global and dimension-basedmeasurements.
-118-
CHAPTER 5
Chgpter 5. TheResearchModel
JNam. 2008
CHAPTER FIVE
THE RESEARCH MODEL
5.1 Introduction
The previous chaptersprovide a broad theoretical overview of constructs in the research
development
This
of the research model and propositions to
concerns
chapter
model.
begins
This
the
the
chapter
with a proposedresearchmodel,
of
research.
objectives
achieve
it.
is
The
to
test
the
the
result
qualitative
study
a revised researchmodel,
of
process
and
data.
In
in
light
the
addition, previous empirical studieswhich show
qualitative
of
modified
the relationshipsamong personal values, brand equity, value for money and brand loyalty
for
final
Finally,
based
the
model.
research
research
support
propositions,
on the
provide
formulated.
are
model,
research
revised
5.2 Research Model

The main objective of this researchis to investigate the antecedentsand consequencesof
brand equity in the hospitality industry. Achieving the objective of the researchdependson
developing an appropriate researchmodel. To develop the research model, this research
-120-
Chapter 5. TheResearchModel
JNam. 2008
(1973)
data.
Sieber
literature
suggested that using
and
qualitative
combines existing
improving
data
data
the conceptual
the
through
quantitative
supports
qualitative
developmentand instrumentation.Consequently,the proposedresearchmodel is revised in
light of the qualitative data from in-depth interviews.
5.2.1 Proposed Research Model

The proposed research model is based on means-endchain model which supports the
behaviour.
less
links
between
and
consumer
abstractvariables
personal values,
associative
Based on the means-endchain model and existing literature, four generatedpropositions,
associatedwith the researchmodel, focus on the interrelationshipsamong personal values,
brand equity and brand loyalty. In addition, the moderatingeffect of customer satisfaction
is
depicts
between
brand
brand
Figure
5.1
the
the
proposed.
equity
and
relationship
on
brand
the
consequences
and
of
equity.
model
which
outlines
antecedents
research
proposed
Figure 5.1: ProposedResearchModel
H2 .....................................................
.......................................
Brand Equity
HI
Personal Values
* Self-Concept
H3
* BrandIdentification
Brand Loyalty
* Lifestyle
* PerceivedQuality
...........
Direct effects
Indirect effects
H4
Customer
Satisfaction
As Figure 5.1 depicts, the important variables of this research model include personal
values as the independent variable, brand equity as the mediating variable, and brand
121
JNam, 2008
loyalty as the dependent variable. In addition, customer satisfaction is the proposed

The
loyalty.
brand
brand
the
researchmodel addressesthe
of
equity
on
effect
moderatorof
brand
loyalty.
brand
satisfaction
and
customer
equity,
relationship among personal values,
The following section presentsthe process of the qualitative study to test the proposed
researchmodel.
5.2.2Qualitative Study: In-depth Interviews

Using a qualitative approach provides richer detail for exploring viewpoints in the early
initial
better
understandingof the problem and
of
a
allows
acquisition
of
research,
stage
identifies phenomena,attitudes and influences (Maxwell, 1996; Healy and Perry, 2000;
Rotchanakitumnuaiand Speece,2003). The main goal of this qualitative study is to test the
identify
to
to
and
among
variables,
any
explain relationships
proposed research model
interviews
in-depth
To
this
used
study
of
accomplish
goal, qualitative
missing variables.
customers.
In order to obtain information
from the point of view of customers, five people (I
high
degrees
housewife,
I
I
I
I
student,
clerical
worker
and
with
manager)
writer/semi-retired,
interviewed
in
branded
hospitality
consumption
were
over a period of ten
of experience
days in September 2007. Customers in the Friary shopping center, Guildford
were
for
interviews.
the
to
the
to
of
research
and
request
permission
explain
purpose
approached
The reason for selecting a shopping center was that most hotels and restaurants were
inside
interviews
hotels
have
their
to
conducted
customers
of
and restaurants. For
reluctant
the purpose of this research, respondents who expressed low degrees of experience in
branded hospitality consumption were not asked to participate in this study. Respondents
interest
indicated
interviewed
location
this
were
an
and
a
convenient to
criterion
at
met
who
20
interview.
The
was
offered
and
compensation
upon
completion
respondent
of
each
each
;G
interviews occurred in a semi-structured format that allows respondents to express their
interview
(e.
A
topics
set
of
g., personal values, self-concept, brand
own viewpoints.
identification, lifestyle, perceived quality and brand loyalty) were guides, and a list of
(e.
Is
Can
there
else?
g.,
anything
you tell me more about that? Why do
probing questions
-122-
Chgj2ter5. TheResearchModel
JNam. 2008
you think so?) attemptedto extract respondents'opinions.

Each interview typically began with several questions regarding the respondent's
(e.
did
have
Recently,
hotel
g.,
you
any
or restaurant
enjoyable/unenjoyableexperiencesat a
). These early questions were
enjoyable/unenjoyableexpqrience at a hotel or restaurant?
intendedto help respondentsplace themselvesin the situation and also to aid in the recall of
followed
by
This
feelings
their
thoughts
was
questions
regarding
experiences.
and
specific
had
(e.
brand
How
hotel
loyalty
they
their
toward
the
experienced
g.,
or restaurant
asking
likely is it that you would visit this brand at the next opportunity?). Next, the respondents
(e.
From
instructed
to
the
g.,
your point of view,
capture
meanings
of
research
variables
were
). In addition, the interview
how would you describe quality for a hotel or restaurant?
questionswere intendedto discover whether or not relationshipsexist among variables and
to identify any missing variable in the research model (e.g., Do you think that your
influences
future
intentions?
What
brand
loyalty
to
makes
your
purchase
perceivedquality
). Interviews continued only as long as participants agreed, usually
hotel or restaurant?
lasting 30-60 minutes.A sampletranscript of theseinterviews appearsin Appendix B.
The findings of these interviews supportedthe proposedresearchmodel's ability to explain
Interviewees
generally mentioned that causal relationships
variables.
among
relationships
brand
brand
in
branded
dimensions
loyalty
of
equity
and
exist
among personal values,
hospitality consumption. However, one of the most important discrepancies between
interview findings and the proposedresearchmodel is that customersare likely to consider
for
in
decision
"value
they
the
to return to a given
money"
received
making
whether or not
hospitality provider and to become brand-loyal customers. Interviewees affirmed that
increased loyalty results from higher levels of value for money, rather than customer
satisfaction, thereby suggesting that customer satisfaction, a moderating variable in the
be
for
to
consider
modified
model,
may
value
money.
proposedresearch
Although many researchersprovided empirical evidenceof a positive relationship between
brand
loyalty,
in
the
ways
and
which brand loyalty actually derive
customer satisfaction
from customer satisfaction are not well understood(Back and Parks, 2003). For example,
Shoemakerand Lewis (1999) found a weak link between customer satisfaction and brand
-123-
JNam. 2008
loyalty in the casino industry. Jonesand Sasser(2000) found that the relationship between
from
brand
loyalty
and
considerably
category to category.
varies
Bowen and Chen (2001) also found that customersmust be extremely satisfied to show
brand loyalty. Moreover, McDougall and Levesque(2000) claimed that value for money is
more critical with respectto brand loyalty than customersatisfaction. Additional evidence
for a positive relationship between value for money and brand loyalty appeared in Oh
(1999), Tam (2000), Murphy et al. (2000), Petrick et al. (2001), Sirdeshmukhet al. (2002),
Yang and Peterson(2004), Duman and Mattila (2005), Lin and Wang (2006), Lee et al.
(2007), and so on (See Table 5.1). Consequently,a revision of the proposedresearchmodel
is the result of qualitative data from in-depth interviews and existing literature.
5.2.3 Revised Research Model

The researchmodel, revised on the basis of the qualitative data from in-depth interviews
for
for
literature,
a
moderating
variable,
value
customer
exchanges
satisfaction,
and existing
between
brand
becomes
brand
this
the
equity
and
moderator
new variable
money, and
loyalty in the revised researchmodel. Figure 5.2 exhibits the revised researchmodel that
guidesthis research.
Figure 5.2: RevisedResearchModel
H2
Brand Equity
HI
* Self-Concept
H3
* Brand Identification
Personal
Brand Loyalty
* Lifestyle
* PerceivedQuality
...........
Direct effects
Indirect effects
H4
Value for Money
-124-
JNam, 2008
gpter 5. TheResearchModel
As Figure 3.2 shows, brand equity is a multidimensional concept that consists of selfconcept, brand identification, lifestyle and perceived quality. Personal values have a
positive effect on brand equity, which in turn influences brand loyalty. In addition, the
impact
brand
the
that
of personal values on brand
researchmodel proposes
equity mediates
loyalty. Finally, the value for money moderatesthe relationship between brand equity and
brand loyalty. Many previous empirical studies investigated the relationships among
variables of the research model in several settings and provided support for the final
research model. Table 5.1 summarizes the previous empirical studies investigating the
relationshipsamongthe focal variablesin the researchmodel.
-125-
.020
bi ,
>0
,A
m
10
:i
"0
0
(. )
CA
;g>rZ
r_
0
b.
CA
4)
.0M
ti
2
4)
cl
u
PO
I=
PW
.0
tu
Iti
-e%
j. -
r- Z
JD
0
10
10
0
4)
l
i
u
> -Z
Gn
0
0
m
ce
bU
>
0
2!
U
rA JD .
t) c ti
t- ','
-0 >0
-i
> 40.
4-.
ci
0t
I'm
4)
=0
-A
blo
=
00
:j
-i
i-
la
,>0
4.)
5
c
r_
.-a
15
-0
o
v%
u
4)
4-.
21.0
,
jm
ci
c .2
4)
>
9)
40.
uu.!
U JD
(jo
0
4;
Q
>
>-
ux
Cd
r_
0
0
0
0
ul
r_
0-
le
Z:
=
-4
0,
0u
Z
ce
,,
*5 0 r.
c)
cj
i r:2
;
E5
0
o. 0
(n
22.
-Cdla
rr.
00
P.
ie Im
0
r.
LIL.
P
0
P4
00
06
0.
10
9
-;r.g 0
l
r.
0
>e
91.
12
r.
c;
r.
CL- M
0.
4) ;e
Ici
r.
,
ti
-cu 10
r.
0c
m0
>
12
1
1.0
c
4)
fi
r_
00
=5
(.) 0
S
C
010
vr
*0
lu
=O
ur
Z
ia
>>
0
9:6
,A "ti
a.
10
0
vi
lu
'2Z -u
>
>
-9
tu
:1
Z
ce
>
' "'
dU
,2
.
-co J.,
9u
:$0
>
>
-c,
0
0m
im.
"n
t
E
w
tl
0
b
bo
10
42
-bd
>
4)
(L) . -
: t
m0
00
Z
121
10
0.
E0
u
-0 19
0
92.
0
cz
10
:i
19
bj)
A
0
lu
0
0
00
00
ON
00
cr,
all
C>
EI
NO
"Ci
Iti
c;
l
Z
im.
:Z
.2
"Ci
g4
.
2
Ici
c26.
5:
.2b.
ce
ceiziv
-jg =
iz
cu
>
>%
:gJ.,
-Z2
b.
k2
>l
&u.
Ze
u
c
>00
9)
W4
ce
92.
r.
J.,
A
CZ.
re
cu
>
0
ZZ2&.
0,1--
92w
4)
Ici
ce
cl
0,
Cw
Ici
cr
(r.
iz
10
CL)
A
.2
uQC
0=
2
Z%
fi
r.
it
tu
u0
02
cn
;ar.
w
4.)
CY
0
A
Ice
CO,
mi
5c
-ii
-cu
.22
JD
ce
t)
N
N
=50
1.
,
m
in
t:w
C:6
(M
gj
2>
:jg
g
-13
c:
QM
m
cc
k.
iD
-0
ce
c71
0V
.2
rA
:sG8As
(21
-ci
*0
9
c71
iz
v2
:-9
:iu
v
Gn
r0
=C:
r.
0
-
ce
KA
>r,
,'g
-.'
5
Qu-
.-.
el-ci 2
92.
eEE
V)
:i
u9"
00
.E
c2.
"0
E Z,
ci
fi
9-2
92.
:1
ir
i.>
JD
-ci
g20u
= 10
c2.
12u
cz
t
0
>%
ub
cr
J2
10
cz
12 >,
99Z,
!2b r-
1: 6
uu
92.
E -0
0Z
u00u
ri
21)
-ce
to 12
-0
&A
:s0-E0
*=Z0.
ur -0
J14
m
.-1uje 41
tg tu
12
=<UM=
he tz
a
12.
Z -9
rA
"
10
9
1-1
c3
43
t
0
gj
011
Co
rA
ce
m)
A:
c: rA
ig
gcu
-i
rn
0%
c>
to
Ln
mi
E
4)
Gn
m
k.
u
ci
-c
lu
ri
-c,
"0
(>
0A
t2.1
.2ufi
><u
FM
r.
0mA0
0
(Z
10
4.)
42
im
li.'
r.
"Ci
>%
E.
.C
u
iz
u
A
l=
i
.
>
tu
J.-
.0
r_
,A
4)
0
15
4)
b.
u
4)
2>
>
>
r.
k,-, 0
t
r_
r_
0
e
";0
ce
-4)
tu
2 iz
0
0
*
.2
JZ;
4)
0
km
CU
"u0 -.
g
0
-,5
0
A
J--
ci
92.
0.
-0
0 iz
;2
92
KDWb.
-0 A
ce
:i
Ei
cr
r_
4.) u
10 .
i.>
.5
t'
-5
-5
12
.
-2
>
Z
.2b
to
k01) 2
c2.
>
-mE
ZP 0
r. -
=0
0
=
CD. el
E-
Z:
tn 1
-;
-5 J Z, ;e
:cl* 9
cr
m
Z,
=
d
0
.:,
-0
",=e 9 -l' *2
CY
10
4)
bi) 2 '.to
'>
fi
-
.2
10
rA E
e
45
>,
bg
42
gi
u0
ci
em
:e
9
m 0
>; E
.5
r_
p :.
.:j
9.
uuE!
== -0
ci
,n
cl
2
=t"
12
.
c3
-0 u
2 -e
Z,
r.
C
0
e
c:
lu
10
.2
b
4)
b.
gt
4)
-0
4)
0
5,
.-
.0
"0
5
m
Ici
2
1
.g
u
0
r-,
us.
tu
10
to
u0
- tr .2
te
t
tr
2
.
me
-ii
r.
0
to
0
.i
c2.
-1-2
0.4)
Gn ="
JA
4)
3
U
)
(A
Z
4.)
0
(A
Ow
0
0
1-,
(A - u
4)
t)
'Z
-5
<u
2
iz
10
0,
oi
g
w
0
'n
g
(U
8, :2
m
9-
0
q
9
b.
fi
rA
C
tz
4)
10
10
b
iz
*o
c71
0-
2>
g.
&.
10
(U
6.r 4-.
0
c2.
43 .0E0
CE 0
-u
-a
.;
mm
9)
:
ei
4)
Um
_u
5:
1r
11
E-0
.j= .u *;;;.
ci
0
0 iD
6tu
-c15
u iz
10
t
r.
iz
i.Q.-
.2
U
r, 1
vi
m
4)
ce.
'.
ct
12
u
.2
vi
bk
.2
CY
t)
a
:2
u
u
(D
rA
rt
1--,
m
cu
rA
0.
Cki
P4
-9
ce
Ci.
r, )
Q
m
Z
A
00
bn
'i
Z
72
0
Z
tn
l=
;t
JA
Z
fi
4.
0
Z
0
2
Mw
c:
4)
>
To
4)
10
0
0
rA
tn
M
r_
2:
.
2
00
*Z *Z j-,
ce
>
>
>
., 7;
0
Cw
cl.
4)
4)
F,
r0
0
E
e
;e
Co
>
E
b.
.
42
40.
0
=0
u>
4.
J.-
4.
Ei
r_
> *im
r.
Ivi
J-Z)
iz
0
r_
0
u
r_
A
u
>
*Z:
Z;
>
4)
tn
>
Im
>
Mw
cu
b.
A
g
A
A
kg
2
c
u
-0
0
u
2t
D
*
0
92.
GA
2 .*m
=-
0
15
ci
r.
0
92.
m
Co
.,;;
0
Cw
ei
>
r.
n
O 2
>
>
>
9:6
>
cu
>
>
r-2
0
--m
r.
15 e .,i
0
Z,
0
r_
a.
u
txo
2tA
E
(4
n
"r.>
e
..
t2
T0
ce
2
bo
Ici
g9
0.
*ci
ci
10
10
Ici
9
Iti
m
ci
-m
u
k.
10
9
ce
>
Ici
4)
;i
>
10
9)
93.
Im
>
"0
u
>
uu
"ti
CL.
m
u
&Z
9
>%
bEi
0
0
4.
>
0
0
4.
Cw
2rA
1.4)
Iti
9
10
0
IM
n.
0
4.
>M
ls
10
Co
>%
>
0
10
I
C's
>
10
u
>
10
u
p4
>
ll-i
Co
10
u
>
lu
u
0.
0.
2
.*A
2
.ig
"0
1K2
P.
P-
0
u
L)
rA
"0
.0R
cl
20
2um
:1
<
C=i
0
-5
2
.
j2
r.
-ci
gl.
JG
i-u
(>
%I0
r0.
>
t
vi
ig
CA
:i
J.-
-0
10
im
gi
cn
D
41.
.
(D
(D
ec
C>
C>
rA
0
5
Ici
cl
6-
123
4)
-ice
-v
4)
0
>n
cl
I ci
im
Ln
e4
2
10
Cw
Gn
Ici
9
0
EmS r_
KA
gn
u
2
-0
M
r.
(>
-
r-1
ce
_w
la
1--,
0
C>
r_
0.
(n
-9
t
=
14
E4
fi
0.
4)
b.
>
(A
u
>
Ic
(U
JD
52
.
4)
4)
2:
.
06
9:
>
92.
0
V
i
0
KDW
(U
im.
M.
10
ce
40.
tu
91.
0.
(U
93.
eu
g
,
.0
Z
0
Ei
0
.c
A
10
fi
fi
Im
cu
cu
>
>
>
2:
.4.)
e
4)
Iti
E
u
ci
"
zu
>
cu
>
>
>
ei
.u
14.
0
CD
0
:=*
!2
.<
s
,
0
r_
>
M
a
Q
iz
0
r4
rq
rq
cq
l
rq
14
:i
Chapter 5. TheResearchModel
JNam. 2008
5.3 Development of the Research Propositions

According to Sekaran(2003, p. 103), a proposition is a "logically conjectured relationship
betweentwo or more variables expressedin the form of a testable statement." Testing the
propositions and confirming the conjectured relationships allows obtaining reliable
information on what kinds of relationshipsexist amongthe variables. Basedon the research
model, four propositions guide this research.
Effects of Personal Valueson Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty

Generally,personalvaluesfunctionas an independent
variablein the researchof consumer
behaviour.Frequentlyin research,valueshaveacceptance
as both a powerful meansto
explore,and an influenceon, consumerbehaviour(Maio and Olson, 1994).Accordingto
held that personalvalues function as
Homer and Kahle (1988), previous researchers
behavioural
decisions
in
for
behaviours
in particular.The
consumer
general
and
grounds
chainmodelalsopredictsthat consumptionbehaviourssuchas brandselection
means-end
In addition,the model providesa
are a meansto achievethe values'desiredend-states.
theoreticaland conceptualstructureconnectingpersonalvalues, self-relevanceand less
behaviour
(Shim
Eastlick,
1998;Wansink,2003).
and
consumer
associations,
and
abstract
Recent empirical researchprovided some evidence that personal values may be useful in
behaviour
(Pitts
and Woodside, 1983). Personal values are
consumer
understanding
behaviours
for
including
predicting
many
consumer
selecting leisure travel style
significant
(Madrigal, 1995), preferencefor leisure activities on holiday (Madrigal and Kahle, 1994),
hotel choice (Zins, 1998) and complaint behaviour (Keng and Liu, 1997). Moreover,
researchshowed that personal values affect various aspectsof consumption attitudes and
behaviours:mall shopping attitude and behaviour (Shim and Eastlick, 1998), formation of
brands
Gutman,
(Reynolds
1984; Perkins and Reynold, 1988), leisure
toward
and
attitude
travel behaviour (Zins, 1998) and food shoppingattitude and behaviour (Homer and Kahle,
1988).
However, Kahle (1980) argued that personal values have an indirect effect on consumer
-131 -
JNam, 2008
behaviourthrough less abstractmediating variables.According to Homer and Kahle (1988),

the influence of personal values should theoretically flow from abstract values to selfbehaviours.
less
Several researchershave
to
association
relevance and
abstract
specific
attemptedto empirically test thesetheoreticalmodels.Pitts and Woodside(1983) reporteda
but
brand
between
criteria,
strong relationship
values and
choice
a very weak relationship
betweenvalues and purchaseintention. The researchof Shim and Eastlick (1998), Homer
and Kahle (1998) and Jayawardhena(2004) showed that personal values have a positive
behaviour,
but
has
direct
a
on
no
effect on attitude; attitude
positive effect
effect exists
betweenpersonalvalues and behaviour.Brunso et al. (2004) also found that personalvalues
have only indirect effect on behaviour through less abstractmediating variables. Moreover,
as mentioned earlier, the means-endchain model supports the associative links among
behaviour.
less
Based on the means-end
consumer
abstract variables and
personal values,
chain model and empirical evidence cited earlier, the possibility exists for flowing from
brand
to
values
equity as a mediating variable to brand loyalty. Hence, this
personal
researchdevelops the following propositions to determine whether or not personal values
have a significant relationship with brand equity and whether or not brand equity mediates
the effect of personalvalueson brand loyalty.
Pl: Personal values have a significant relationship with brand eguity.
Pla: Personalvalues have a significant relationshipwith "self-concept" of brand equity.

P1b: Personalvalueshave a significant relationshipwith "brand identification" of brand equity.
P1c: Personalvalueshave a significant relationshipwith "lifestyle" of brand equity.
Pld: Personalvalueshave a significant relationshipwith "perceived quality" of brand equity.
P2: Brand eguity mediates the effect of personal values on brand loyally.
Effects of Brand Equity on Brand Loyalty

Within marketing literature, operationalizationsof brand equity usually fall into two groups:
consumerperceptionand consumerbehaviour(Cobb.Walgrenet al., 1995; Yoo and Donthu,
2001). For example, Aaker (1991,1996)
proposed brand equity incorporates both
perceptualand behavioural dimensions.However, Keller (2008) suggestedthat behavioural

dimensions, such as brand loyalty, should be excluded from brand equity because
-132-
JNam, 2008
brand
in
habit
buying
be
the
without really thinking much
of
a
particular
consumersmay
(2006)
distinguished
(1995)
Johnson
Lassar
the
also
strictly
and
et
al.
et al.
about why.
behaviour
is a consequence
from
behavioural
dimensions
dimensions
that
the
so
perceptual
itself.
brand
brand
This researchconsidersonly perceptionas a
than
equity
of
equity rather
dimensionof brand equity, such as self-concept,brand identification, lifestyle and perceived
brand
loyalty
be
judging
brand
to
thereby
of
equity rather than brand
a
consequence
quality,
equity itself.
have investigatedthe relationshipbetweenbrandequity and brand

Numerousresearchers
loyalty and providedempirical evidenceof a positive relationshipbetweenthe two. For
brand
Stathakopoulos
(2004)
Gounaris
brand
that
to
the
and
claimed
equity
relates
example,
loyalty-typean individual developstowardsa specific brand.The researchof Yoo and
Donthu (2001), Washburnand Plank (2002) and Chen and Chang(2008) also found a
highly positive relationshipbetweenbrand equity and purchaseintention. In particular,
brand
investigated
(1995)
Cobb-Walgren
the
effect
of
equityon consumerpreferences
et al.
both
(hotels)
intentions
data
from
(household
service
and
product
using
purchase
and
higher
brand
in
found
They
the
that
the
with
equity
eachcategory
cleaners)categories.
intentions.
Furthermore,
Johnson
and
purchase
greater
preferences
significantly
et
generates
brand
found
(2006)
that
equity, consisting of self-concept,lifestyle and brand
al.
identification,has a small negativeeffect on loyalty intention early in the product'slife
cycle, but becomesprogressivelymore positive over time. Kumar et al. (2003) also
demonstrated
that brandequityhasa positiveeffecton relationshipintention.Basedon the
intent
the
cited
of the following propositionsis to determine
earlier,
empiricalevidence
has
brand
brand
loyalty.
relationship
a
significant
equity
with
whetheror not
P3: Brand eguity hasa significant relationshipwith brand loyalty.
P3a: "Self-concept" of brand equity hasa significant relationship with brand loyalty.
P3b: "Brand identification" of brand equity has a significant relationship with brand loyalty.
P3c: "Lifestyle" of brand equity has a significant relationshipwith brand loyalty.
P3d: "Perceivedquality" of brand equity has a significant relationship with brand loyalty.
-133-
JNam. 2008
Effects of Brand Equity and Value for Money on Brand Loyalty

Existing marketing literature does not satisfactorily explain the relationships among brand
investigated
brand
loyalty.
brand
Although
for
researchers
past
and
money
equity, value
integration
into
brand
loyalty,
for
these
of
variables
an
a single
money
and
equity, value
both
brand
is,
however,
is
The
that
expectation
equity and value for
model not apparent.
brand
loyalty.
As
future
behaviour
or
mentionedearlier, numerousresearchers
affect
money
between
brand
of
a
positive
relationship
equity and brand
provided empirical evidence
loyalty. Also, cumulative insights from prior studiessupportedthe general notion that value
for money contributes to brand loyalty (Lin and Wang, 2006). Sirohi et al. (1998) claimed
that value for money has a positive effect on loyalty intention. Similarly, Sirdeshmukhet al.
(2002) found a link betweenvalue for money and customer loyalty using data from airline
travel and retailing service contexts.In particular, the researchof Hartline and Jones(1996),
Oh (1999) and Tam (2000) found that value for money has a positive effect on behavioural
intention in the hotel and restaurant industries. Additional evidence for a positive
brand
loyalty
for
in
between
Dodds et al. (1991),
appeared
money
and
value
relationship
Bolton and Drew (1991), Sweeneyet al. (1997), Murphy et al. (2000), Petrick et al. (2001),
Yang and Peterson(2004), Lee et al. (2007), and so on.
Accordingly, brand equity and value for money have been shown to have a positive effect
investigated
have
loyalty.
Although
brand
the separateeffects of brand
researchers
past
on
loyalty,
for
brand
any study which simultaneously examined
on
and
money
value
equity
both brand equity and value for money is not apparent. Therefore, the intent of the
following propositions is to determinewhether or not value for money moderatesthe effect
brand
loyalty.
brand
equity on
of
P4: Value for money moderates the effect of brand eguity on brand loyalty.
P4a: Value for money moderatesthe effect of "self-concept" of brand equity on brand loyalty.
P4b: Value for money moderatesthe effect of "brand identification" of brand equity on
brand loyalty.
P4c: Value for money moderatesthe effect of "lifestyle" of brand equity on brand loyalty.
P4d: Value for money moderatesthe effect of "perceived quality" of brand equity on brand
loyalty.
-134-
Chgi2ter5. TheResearchModel
JNam, 2008
5.4 Summary
The main objective of this researchis to investigatethe antecedentsand consequencesof
brand equity in the hospitality industry. To achieve this objective, this chapter developsa
researchmodel. In particular, this researchcombinesthe results of existing literature and
qualitative data from in-depth interviews to develop the model. The important variables of
the researchmodel include: personalvaluesas the independentvariable, brand equity as the
for
mediating variable, value
money as the moderating variable and brand loyalty as the
dependentvariable. In addition, previous empirical studieswhich support the relationships
among the focal variables in the research model are presented. Finally, based on the
researchmodel, researchpropositions are developed.The next chapter discussesthe many
issues
relatedto the presentresearch.
methodological
-135-
CHAPTER 6
Chapter 6 Methodo
JNam, 2008
CHAPTER SIX
METHODOLOGY
6.1 Introduction
This chapter discussesa number of methodological issuesrelated to the presentresearch.
The first part of this chapter explains the philosophy behind this research.The secondpart
including
design
data
sampling
method
and
collection method.
sampling
concerns
Furthermore, a discussion of the questionnaire design includes the measurement of
layout.
demonstrates
This
the pre-test,which relates
section
also
questionnaire
variablesand
to the generation of the final questionnaire.The final part of this chapter demonstrates
for
These
from
data
this
selected
research.
methods
methods
analysis
range
simple
various
descriptive analysis, T-test, ANOVA test and correlation analysis to more complex
techniques:factor analysis,reliability analysisand multiple regressionanalysis.
6.2 Research Philosophy

Researchis the process which createsnew knowledge. Actually, all theory and research
foundations
(Hunt, 1990). The term research
have
underlying philosophical
efforts
-137-
Chgj2ter6 Methodolo
JNam. 2008
knowledge.
The
development
knowledge
the
that
to
the
nature
of
and
of
philosophy relates
important
in
investigator
the
assumptions
of
way
adopts
contains
an
researchphilosophy
2003).
Although
(Saunders
the
al.,
many researchers
et
world
which a researcherviews
conduct sound researchwithout thought of underlying philosophical considerations,some
knowledge of researchphilosophies is useful becauseit helps to clarify the researchdesign
2005).
Within
(Blumberg
field
facilitates
the
the
et
al.,
an
appropriate
one
of
of
choice
and
interpretivism.
distinguished
two
exist:
positivism
research
philosophies
and
social research,
The philosophical position of positivism is synonymouswith the quantitative paradigm,
(Crotty,
1998).
interpretivism
the
the
a
qualitative
paradigm
world
adopts
of
view
while
According to Reichardt and Cook (1979, p.9), "the quantitative paradigm is said to have a
positivistic, hypothetico-deductive,particularistic, objective, outcome-orientedand natural
is
In
the
said to subscribe to a
paradigm
contrast,
qualitative
science world view.
inductive,
phenomenological,
holistic,
subjective, process oriented, and social
"
Table
6.1
summarizesthe opposing stancesof positivism and
view.
world
anthropological
interpretivism.
Table 6.1: Positivism an(I InterpretivismCompared

Positivism
Interpretivism
BasicPrinciples
View of theworld
Theworldis externaland
objective.
Involvementof
researcher
is independent.
Researcher
Researcher's
influence
Researchis value-free.
Theworldis sociallyconstructed
and
subjective.
Researcher
ispartof whatisobserved
and
sometimes
evenactivelycollaborates.
Researchis driven by humaninterests.
Assumptions
What is observed?
Objective,often quantitative,facts Subjectiveinterpretationsof meanings
How is knowledge
developed?
Reducingphenomena
to simple
elementsrepresentinggeneral
laws
Source: Blumberg et al. (2005, p.21)
-138-
Takinga broadandtotal view of

phenomenato detectexplanationsbeyond
the currentknowledge
Chqpter 6 Methodolo
JNam. 2008
These differences in basic principles and assumptionshave several implications for how
is
Positivism
a research philosophy adopting the
research.
conduct
researchersshould
2003).
According
(Saunders
to this view,
the
al.,
et
science
natural
philosophical stanceof
by
facts,
be
described
idea
from
that
the
the
objective
which are
world can
positivism starts
then examined.Hence, one needsto assesswhether observationsare indeed objective facts.
The constructs used are operationalized to ensure that researchersobserving the same
2005).
A
it
in
(Blumberg
the
et
al,
common study structure
same
way
phenomenonmeasure
in positivism is that researchersexamine a researchproblem by testing whether or not
theoretically derived hypotheseshold for the situationsexamined(Saunderset al., 2003). If
the objective facts support the hypotheses,the derived fundamentallaws are applicable and
their validity is reinforced (Blumberg et al., 2005).
Unlike positivism, interpretivism is interestedin subject meanings and interpretations of
in
Because
is
detect
to
situation.
occurrences
a
specific
each
observation
phenomena
different
ideally,
and
sources
on
multiple
methods to collect
rely,
subjective, researchers
information of phenomena (Blumberg et al., 2005). The common study structure for
interpretivism is different from positivism. Interpretivism offers a thick and rich description
interpretation
is
investigated
the
provides
whose
understanding
phenomena,
of what
of
happening(Jankowicz,2005). In interpretivism, simple fundamental laws are insufficient to
(Blumberg
2005).
the
phenomena
of
social
complexity
et
al.,
whole
understand
Although the present research investigates customer perceptions of hotel or restaurant
brands, which is, at its center, interpretivism, the actual aim of this research is to test
establishedhypothesesabout associationsamong a set of researchvariables. Furthermore,
by
to
scientific
rigour
using reliability and validity to
seeks
achieve
present research
findings
These
that
they
to
the
are
replicable
and
so
generalizable
other
situations.
evaluate
require taking into consideration the objectivity of the positivism. However, qualitative
further
for
information
development
of the research model.
provides
methodology
Therefore,some kind of interpretation is necessaryfor better understandingof the research
findings. Accordingly, the present research adopts positivism and interpretivism
simultaneously.
-139-
Chapter 6 Methodology
JNam, 2008
6.3 Sampling Design

Having clearly specified the problem and objectivesof the research,the next stage in the
information
from
(Churchill
is
to
the
to
collect
which
appropriate
sample
select an
process
Hair
(2006),
2004).
According
the sampling procedure plays an
Iacobucci,
to
et
al.
and
important role in the process of identifying, developing, and understanding research
objectivesthat need investigation. Without a soundsamplingprocedure,data collection will
include neither the proper respondentsnor the appropriate number of them. Indeed, the
1993).
Churchill
be
(Tull
Hawkins,
is
likely
to
and
and Brown
useless
study outcome
(2004) suggesteda useful six-step processto follow when drawing a sampleof a population.
Figure 6.1 showsthat six-step process.
Figure 6.1: SamplingDesign Process
Step 1
Define the
TargetPopulation
Step 2
Identify the
Sampling Frame
I
Step 3
Selectthe
Sampling Method
Step 4
Determine the
SampleSize
Step 5
Selectthe
SampleElements
Step 6
Collect the Data from

the DesignatedElements
Source: Churchill and Brown (2004, p.401)
-140-
JNam. 2008
Sampling design begins by defining the target population of the researchfrom which to
draw an inference (Churchill and Brown, 2004). The target population must have precise
definition. Imprecise definition of the targetpopulation results in researchthat is ineffective
at best,and misleading at worst (Malhotra, 2004).
Secondly,the identifying sampling framework provides a representationof the elementsof
the target population, and consistsof a list of the elementsfrom which to select the actual
frame
decreases
Brown,
2004).
Having
(Churchill
the
sampling
a
complete
sample
and
likelihood of drawing an unrepresentativesample.Sampling frames can be created from a
lists
from
(e.
different
a company's internal database,
sources g., customer
number of
telephonebook, an organization'smembershiproster,a city directory, or a map) (Hair et al.,
2006).
The third step in the sampling design process is selection of a sampling method, which
identification
frame
to
the
of
sampling
since the choice of sampling method
relates
closely
dependslargelyon the developedsamplingframe(ChurchillandBrown,2004).

The next steprequires determiningthe samplesize. Samplesize determination is significant
from both a statistical and an economic point of view. In practice, no one number of
However,
for
identifies
size.
generally,
a
perfect
sample
more important decisions,
subjects
the preferenceis for more data over less, and precisely gathered information is desirable.
This calls for larger samples,but as the sample size increases,so do the resource(money
and time) requirements(Malhotra, 2004).
The fifth stepdefinesthe needto choosethe elementsto includein the research,determine

identifiedas part of the sample,and finally,
how to contactthe prospectiverespondents,
data
designated
from
Maintainingconsistencyand
the
the
respondents.
collect appropriate
controlis essentialin this step(Hair et al., 2006).
Moreover, Hair et al. (2006) suggested that while keeping in mind the theoretical
issues,
and advantageand disadvantagesof the different sampling
components,sampling
techniques,selection of the most appropriatesampling design should incorporatethe seven
-
141
Chgj2ter6 Methodologv
JNam, 2008
factors displayed in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Critical Factorsin Selectingan Appropriate Sampling Design
Questions
SelectionFactors
ResearchObjectives
Do the researchobjectivescall for the use of qualitative or quantitative

researchdesign?
Degreeof Accuracy
Does the researchcall for making predictions or inferencesabout the

definedtargetpopulationor only preliminaryinsights?
Availability of Resources
Doesthe researchproject confronttight budgetconstraintswith respect

to both dollarsandmanpowerallocation?
Time Frame
How quickly doesthe researchprojecthaveto be completed?
Advance Knowledge of the Do completelists of the definedtarget populationelementsexist?How

TargetPopulation
easyor difficult is generatingthe requiredsamplingframe of prospective
respondents?
Scopeof the Research
Is the researchgoingbe international,national,regional,or local?
Statistical
Analysis Needs
To what extentare accuratestatisticalprojectionsrequiredand/ortesting

of hypothesizeddifferencein the datastructures?
Source: Hair et al. (2006, p.343)

From the sevencritical factors in selectingan appropriatesampling design, first of all, a full
initial
for
deten-nining
the
the
the
provides
objectives
guidelines
research
of
understanding
desired
degree
design.
Second,
the
of accuracyvaries among research
appropriatesampling
projects, especially when evaluating cost savingsor other resourceconsiderations.Guiding
the selection of appropriate sampling designs is the desired level of accuracy. Third,
in
is
factor
design.
If
critical
selecting
a
of
resources
an
appropriate
sampling
availability
financial and human resourcesare substantially limited, a less-time consuming sampling
is
frame
Fourth,
the
the
time
than
complex
method
a
more
necessary
choice.
methodrather
influencessampling design selection. Impending deadlinesscertainly eliminate more timein
Fifth,
many cases,a lack of definitive respondentsin a
methods.
consuming sampling
have
is
in
to
the target
a
clear
researchers
understanding
of
who
requires
population
population when selecting an appropriatesampling design. Sixth, the scopeof the research,
international, national, regional, or local, influences the choice of the sampling design.
-142-
Chgj2ter6- Methodology
JlVam, 2008
Finally, the need for accurate statistical projections basedon the sample results is often a
(Hair
2006).
design
in
et
al.,
appropriate
sampling
an
criterion selecting
Influencing the sampling design processfor the presentresearchare two suggestions:the
Brown
(2004)
design
by
(SeeFigure 6.1),
Churchill
and
suggested
process
six-stepsampling
and the seven critical factors in selecting an appropriate sampling design by Hair et al.
(2006) (See Table 6.2). An outline of the specific sampling design and data collection
following
in
for
the
the
section.
appears
research
adopted
present
method
6.3.1 Sampling Method

Sampling methods encompasstwo broad categories:probability and non-probability. Nonprobability sampling includes classifications of convenience,quota, or judgment, while
be
can
systematic,cluster, simple random or stratified. Some of these
sampling
probability
have further sub-classifications (Churchill and Brown, 2004). Figure 6.2 shows the
classification of sampling methods.
-143-
Chapter 6 Methodo
JNam. 2008
Figure 6.2: Classificationof SamplingMethods
Sampling
methods
Non-probability
sampling
Probability
sampling
Systematic
sampling
Cluster
sampling
)I(
Convenience
sampling
Stratified
sampling
Simple random
sampling
Judgment
sampling
Quota
sampling
Source: Adapted from McDaniel and Gates(2006, p.305)
In probabilitysampling,eachelementin the definedtargetpopulationhasa known,nonzero

(Hair
for
2006).
being
The
the
et
al.,
sample
selected
of
probability of each
probability
being
for
be
but
the
target
the
selected
sample
population
may
not
equal,
of
element
Therefore,
has
known
of
selection.
a
probability
researcherscan calculatethe
everyone
selectionlikelihoodfor any givenpopulationelement,becausethe final sampleelementsare
the result of an objective,specific,mechanicalprocess.Since objectivity is part of the
the reliability of the sampleresults.
areableto assess
elementselectionprocess,researchers
For this reason,probabilitysamplingis the superiormethod,in the termsof inherentability
to estimatethe amountof samplingerror.Probabilitysamplingis the usualmethodwhenthe
importance
is
for
izability
(Churchill
the
of
wider
of
sample
general
and
representativeness
Brown,2004).Generally,probabilitysamplingincludessystematic,cluster,simplerandom,
6.3).
(See
Table
sampling
stratified
and
-144-
Chgpter 6 MethodoloSo
JNam, 2008
Table 6.3: Probability SamplingMethods

Sampling Method
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Systematic
Sampling
Every nth elementin the

populationis chosenstartingfrom
a randompoint in the population
frame.
Easyto useif
populationframeis
available.
Systematicbiasesare
possible
Cluster
Sampling
Groupsthat haveheterogeneous
membersare first identified; then
someare chosenat random;all the
membersin each of the randomly
chosengroupsarestudied.
In geographic
clusters,costsfor
datacollectionare
low.
The leastreliableand
efficient amongall
probability sampling
designssincesubsets
of clustersaremore
homogeneous
than
heterogeneous.
Simple Random
Sampling
All elementsin the populationare High

generalizabilityof
consideredandeachelement
has an equal chance of being findings.
chosenasthe subject.
Not asefficient as
stratifiedsampling.
Stratified Random
Sampling
Population is first divided into

meaningful segments; thereafter,
subjectsare drawn in proportionto
their original numbers in the
population.
Stratificationmustbe
meaningful,but is
moretime-consuming
than simplerandom
samplingor
systematicsampling.
Most efficient
among
all probability
designs.
Source: Adapted from Sekaran(2003, p.280)

In non-probability sampling, the probability of selecting each sampling element is not
known (Hair et al., 2006). Thus, no way exists for ensuringthat the sampleis representative
in
All
judgment
samplings
the
non-probability
rely
on
personal
somewhere
population.
of
the sample-selectionprocess. This is in opposition to a mechanical procedure to select
involves
judgment
in
Since
the
sampling
non-probability
personal
elements.
sample
being
the
of
any
probability
population
selectedandthe
assessing
element
process,
selection
degreeof sampling error involved is not possible (Churchill and Brown, 2004). Somenondependable
than others, and those offer some
are
more
probability sampling methods
important leads to useful information with regard to the population (Sekaran, 2003).
Generally,non-probability sampling includes convenience,quota, and judgment sampling
(SeeTable 6.4).
-145-
Chgpter 6 Methodolo
JNam. 2008
Table 6.4: Non-probability SamplingMethods

Sampling Method
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Quick, convenient,
lessexpensive.
Not generalizable
at all.
Convenience
Sampling
The mosteasilyaccessible
membersarechosenassubjects.
Quota Sampling
Not easily
Subjectsare convenientlychosen Veryusefulwhere
from targetedgroups according minority participation generalizable.
to some predeterminednumber in a studyis critical.
or quota.
JudgmentSampling Subjectsareselectedon the basis Sometimes,the only

of their expertisein the subject meaningfulway to
investigate.
being investigated.
Generalizabilityis
questionable;not
generalizableto an
entirepopulation.
Source: Adapted from Sekaran(2003, p.280)

As mention earlier, probability sampling enablesresearchersto judge the reliability of the
sampleresults, something not possible with non-probability sampling regardlessof careful
judgment exercisedin selectingelements(Hair et al., 2006). However, this is not to say that
be
more representativethan non-probability sampling.
will
always
probability sampling
Indeed, a non-probability sampling may be more representative. The advantage of
it
is
is
likely
the
that
that
to
allows
measurement
of
sampling
sampling
error
probability
hand,
lower
With
the
sampling,
on
other
costs and time requirements
non-probability
occur.
Moreover,
is
sampling.
over
probability
non-probability
sampling
advantages
are
is
if
data
collection
careful and thorough (Churchill and Brown,
reasonablyrepresentative
2004). Table 6.5 provides a comparison of probability and non-probability sampling
factors.
based
selected
sampling
on
methods
-146-
JNam, 2008
Table 6.5: Comparisonof Probability andNon-probability Sampling Methods

Comparison Factors
Probability Sampling
Non-Probability
List of the population elements
Completelist necessary
None necessary
Information about the

samplingunits
Each unit identified
Need detail on habits, activities,

traits, etc.
Samplingskill required
Skill required
Little skill required
Time requirement
Time-consuming
Low time consumption
Cost per unit sampled
Moderateto high
Low
Estimatesof population parameters Unbiased
Sampling
Biased
Samplerepresentativeness
Good, assured
Suspect,undeterminable
Accuracy and reliability
Computedwith
confidenceintervals
Unknown
Measurementof sampling error
Statisticalmeasures
No true measureavailable
Source: Hair et al. (2006, p. 33 1)
The populationin the presentresearchconsistsof native English speakers,familiar with

for
in
hotel
hotel
brands
UK.
The
the
these
two
selecting
reason
categoriesrestaurantand
from
fact
brands
hotels
the
that
stems
mainly
and restaurantsare
and restaurant
hospitality
industry.
the
the
reflecting
sectors
properly
characteristics
of
representative
Basedon the aboveconsiderations,
this researchadoptsa conveniencesamplingmethod.
Two reasonsunderwritethe adoptionof the conveniencesamplingmethod.First are the
lack of an availablesamplingframeand the lack of specificpopulationinformation.The
is
fact
the
that the targetpopulationis homogeneous,
convenience
sampling
of
assumption
and samples,selectedaccordingto accessibility,are similar to the overall definedtarget
being
to
the
characteristics
studied(Hair et al., 2006). Second,
populationwith regard
limited time and resourcesare available. Even though conveniencesampling has
frequently
disadvantages,
this method becauseof its lower
use
marketing researchers
demandon resources(McDaniel and Gates, 2006). Conveniencesampling enables
in
data
large
a relativelyshorttime and at lower costs(Hair et al.,
amountof
gatheringa
2006).
-147-
Chapter 6 Methodo
JNam. 2008
6.3.2 Data Collection Method

For this research,data collection is through a personally administered questionnaire.The
is
incurs
data
that
this
of
all
completed
collection
responses
method
main advantageof
face-to-face
This
time
method affords an opportunity to
expenditures.
and
cost
minimal
introduce the researchtopic and motivate respondentsto offer frank answers.Moreover, it
doesnot require significant skill to administera questionnaire(Sekaran,2003).
To participate in the survey, respondentswere approachedat different locations over a
high
in
November
2007:
three
street,shoppingcomplexesand train stations.
weeks
period of
Further sampling occurred with selectedrespondentswaiting for flights in the departure
lounge of a major UK airport. The reasonof selecting various locations for a survey site
inside
hotels
to
that
allow
surveys
of
customers
and
restaurants
were
reluctant
most
was
their hotels and restaurants.In order to maintain consistencyin the data gathering process,
in
hospitality
became
data
tourism
management
majoring
and
collectors
students
university
informed
The
training.
approached
and
were
about the purpose
respondents
after receiving
Especially,
being
in
the
the
questionnaire'spregiven
questionnaire.
research advanceof
of
diffIculties
have
in understandingthe
English
that
some
speakers
test revealed
non-native
Thus,
English
target
population
was
set
as
native
questions.
speakerswho
some
of
context
in
hotel
brands
UK.
Screening
familiar
the
and
questionswere askedto
restaurant
with
are
identify if a respondentwas a native English speakerand familiar with restaurantand hotel
brands in the UK. Those who met these criteria were given a self-administered
instructed
directly
to
they
to the students
complete
were
and
which
return
questionnaire,
Whenever
had
the
a respondentrefused to participate, the trained
survey.
administered
who
studentsmoved to the next available subject. A total of 579 people were approached,of
which 397 (68.6%) completed the questionnaires.Of these, 19 were excluded, since they
had not beenfully completed.Thus, a total of 378 were used for further analysis.A method
of increasingthe responserate was the use of monetary incentives. The high responserate
2
(e.
instant
lottery
in
for
68.6%
the
to
ticket)
gift
attributed
g.,
partly
offered
of
was
return
JG
participation. Previous studies showed. the effectiveness of using various monetary
incentivesfor improving survey responserates(Brennanet al., 1991; Brennan, 1992).
-148-
Chgpter 6 Methodolo
JNam, 2008
6.4 Questionnaire Design

Questionnairedesign is of key importance,and an appropriatequestionnaireaccomplishes
the researcher'sobjectives (Aaker et al., 2004). Even though the value of a well-designed
questionnaire cannot be overestimated, scientific principles that guarantee an ideal
questionnairedo not exist (Malhotra, 2004). Much of the progress in questionnairedesign
has been,simply, a growing awarenessof what to avoid and a few guidelines for developing
questionsthat are not ambiguous (Churchill and Brown, 2004). Questionnairedesign is a
skill a researcheracquires through experience rather than by conforming to guidelines
(Kinnear and Taylor, 1996).
Although each questionnaire design must creatively respond to the specific needs of the
logical
sequence
a
of
steps aid developing a useful questionnaire. Figure 6.3
research,
provides a flowchart of the processof questionnairedesign.
Figure 6.3: Processof QuestionnaireDesign
Planning What to
Measure
T
Step 1
Step 2
Formatting the
Questionnaire
Step3
WordingQuestions
Step4
Sequencing
andLayout
Decisions
Step 5
Pre-testing
Step 6
Correcting Problems
Source: Adapted from Aaker et al. (2004, p.313)
-149-
JNam, 2008
The basic processof questionnairedesign, adoptedfor the present research,derives from

the suggestionsof Aaker et al. (2004) who assertedthat a primary necessityis to plan what
to measure.This is a most difficult step in questionnairedesign. Poor judgment and lack of
thought may mean that the results are not relevant to the research objectives. Another
considerationis the format of eachquestion.Researchersmust decide question content,and
choose the nature of responses:open-ended,multiple choices, two alternatives, or scale
representation.After evaluating each researchquestion on the basis of comprehensibility,
knowledge and ability, and willingness/inclination of a typical respondentto answer the
question, attention focuses on determining the precise wording of the question. This is a
critical task; poor question wording may causerespondentsto answer inappropriately or
inaccurately (as comparedto their actual feelings) becauseof misunderstanding.The next
step involves layout and sequencingchoices.The fifth step is pre-testing the questionnaire
be
to
those
similar
will
used as actual research subjects. This
who
among respondents
activity constitutes an experimental reading of the questionnaire by a test group of
feedback
logic
likelihood
data
to
the
obtain
about
and
of
obtaining
appropriate
respondents
for valid and relevant measurement.Finally, the comments from respondentsare vital for
discoveringproblems with the questionnaire,its administration, and its analysis.Input from
the pre-testguidesnecessaryrevisions (Aaker et al., 2004; Churchill and Brown, 2004).
For this research,two different versions of the questionnairestarget different segmentsof
hospitality categories - hotel and restaurant. Questions in the two versions are similar
brand
lists
for
the
the
of
names and visit experience questions which use an
except
for
the specific category. The final questionnaire for this researchhas
appropriate word
three sections:
- Respondent's familiarity with a hotel/restaurantbrand (e.g., degree of familiarity,
frequency of restaurant visits/hotel stays, purpose for restaurant visit/hotel stay,
satisfaction,value for money)
Respondent'sperceptions of a hotel/restaurantbrand (e.g., perceived quality, brand
identification, lifestyle, self-concept,brand loyalty)
Respondent'spersonal values and socio-demographics(e.g., personal values, gender,
-ISO-
Chgpter 6 Methodolog-
JNam. 2008
background,
educational
employment status, annual personal
nationality,
age,
income)
The following section delineatesthe specific processof questionnaire design, adopted for
this research.
6.4.1Measurement of Variables
The measurementfor all the variables in this researchrelies on previous research.
for all itemsin this researchusesa 7-pointLikert-typescale.Table6.6 shows
Measurement
includingvariables,question,scaleandsource.
the measurements
-151 -
oj
CD
10
10
(D
0
V
CD
(D
11-1
t:
Iri
CD Ici
rq
c)
0
926.
0
0.
00
0
0
A e: A
g - 9Z
r_
E -0
45
v
im.
0
926.
0
=
re
tu
-Wr
>
e:
4)
gp
- Eer -;;
0 4)
U.
1.
. -b g
0
Cw
-U
LVi-9 14- > C) =

u=
Co
ZA cm -6
r.
2>u
12
J4
e:
r_
-0
0U
iz cu
-e
U
2r
0
V)
-bd
(2 -ci
=9
>, 1.
EKu>,
"->,
,-"
0
'm
Z-e==,
:3
rA
CA
.-
. 12
M
=
%A 9:
0u
v)
JD
14
.
-ci M
b.
JD
b.
fi
50e
*0
4.
0
UAwU5
i
CA
cu
%-
0,
E
Q.
IJ
r:
U
ei N >>
.-.,
10
-j
;e
NC
=
= lu
-;ug u -;;
12
.
2%
,
-5 =E
04
;g
u U
u0=
gf
rA
00E
4)
to
.2
:
> %
=9
ol
r.
JO
'm
(A
- '4
.-
e
CA
0
r-
Co
4i
uV
I m .-u
0 .
-':!
A
r-
>
jz
>
0
0. .45
'
-
Ei
0,0U
u0
'5
g Z. r=
(bi
*;=
-J
rA
e 4)
:3-
r_
"c$
r.
'0
42
jn
'CJ
Ei
cm
.-
u4-
>
CD..
fi
4)
-e
r.
Ici
2
10
;E
E=
0uu
10
C*4
10
-0
J-3
9A9A
ei
U
e--
-C3 ?>
2.
;9
;5
-5-:s -e
%A
uuuu
zj
e95
JD
mme9.
4.
00000
KA
C:6
.2-
0.
C:-
%A
(U
c3-
*zi
c:
U,
4)
0
32 A,
CA
2&
.tu r-0
9) r.
94
CJ
tj
<
1
lr
r-'-
0
u
3, 0
0
Ln
:0a r.0
j tp
fA0
iZg
Ln
10
rw
w
"0
vi
2
-5
=
jl. -a
J>,
CO
t.
CA
> % > % >% >

uu
0
,.
(A
10
9
mmg
g;
Z
CY
CA -0
;
tq
u
92.
lil.
tu
v
E- e: .ro;
4)
M)
Jd
>%
10
00
9
C> 0
N
t:
Ln
4)
im.
(4
*.0
0
Z
40
b:
u2
(A
'-,
rq
>%
g.
oll
cu
.2
cq
fi
cli
011
i> -5
.i
2:
0
9w
ci
CY
l-
iz
=U
.E
h
42
9)
4.
_A
"ti
4)
70.
m
0
A
r-
9
30
.2
JD
4-
0
r.
.M
E
C.)
=
=
=
tu
(.) 4
4)
0
Q
e>
r-
:i
r
v
b.
c:
,
Z
-2
4)!'&;
r- -
iz
E
94
ce
.-
0
0
9
bo
%Z u=
1-
1- cj ,
ex
(U
mw -
0
-
-0
0
.9
6. .2
du
E 1-. ;3
2:
,-U
r 'm
-0 0- -. a)
9
c)
.r
13
E:1 u
' e
t)
0e,
1-1
4.
-:
-,
.u
.
..
-2:
ci
IJ
4;
%z
.
tz
m
U)
Z$ 29 e. r-
3 u
9:
(4
.-
-2 A r, z5 - , y
en
tn
1
l
10
CD
r-1
ci
Li
iz
Ici
u
A0
<
cm
iz
CA
-5
.E
9
r-
4;
u
4
,2
-ce
Ln
9)
4.)
JO
>
-IU
.M
cr_
0
>
&
40
Gn
M.
x
A
e e g
'V
LI.0
-
c71
w
A
.A
es
IC
in
JD
>
0
9
m
0
Z w iz -
rA
gi
:3
-e
42
.0
JA
2 z E
.
-
CDW
>
-d
2:
ce
>%
IRT
Chapter 6 Methodo
JNam. 2008
(1) Brand Equity

The operationalizations of brand equity divide into consumer perception and consumer
behaviour (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). Keller (2008) suggested
because
be
in
habit
brand
from
dimensions
the
behavioural
customers
may
equity
excluding
Similarly,
Lassar
brand
buying
thinking
about
et al.
much
why.
really
without
a particular
of
(1995) proposed that brand equity consists of only perceptual dimensions, excluding
behavioural dimensions such as brand loyalty. Johnson et al. (2006) also only used the
included
Johnson
(2006)
brand
dimension.
The
et
al.
whether
of
equity measures
perceptual
brand
fits
lifestyles,
their
the
brand
whether
or
not
the
personal
customers'
reflects
or not
Lassar
(1995),
Johnson
identification.
brand
(self-concept),
al.
et al.
et
and
personalities
(2006) and Keller (2008) strictly distinguished the perceptual dimensions from the
behavioural dimensions so that behaviour is a consequenceof brand equity rather than
brand equity itself. The current researchis designedto provide insights into the value of
brand by adopting only consumerperceptionas a dimension of brand equity. In particular,
brand
identification,
lifestyle
brand
and
equity, namely: self-concept,
components of
brand
the
to
equity.
perceivedquality, are assumed construct context of customer-based
Self-concept
Different methods of measuring self-concept have had wide testing among many
2005).
However,
(Back,
two methods of measuring self-concept are primary:
researchers
traditional method and new method. The new method assumesthat processingself-concept
is global and direct, not dimension-basedor indirect as the traditional method assumed.
According to Sirgy and Su (2000), in comparing the predictive validity of the new method
be
the
to
traditional
the
that
new
method
more predictive of
method,
appeared
of
with
behaviours
different
Therefore,
attitudes
and
across
studies.
six
consumer
various
in
(2000)
Sirgy
Su
this
the
research
uses
of
and
of
self-concept
new
method
measurement
direction
This
(2005).
the
Back
provides
respondents
and then asks a
method
with
and
question:
hotel/restaurant brand. Consider the kind
Pleasetake a moment to think about the
155-
Chapter 6 Methodolo
JNam, 2008
brand.
Imagine
in
hotel/restaurant
this
typically
person
your
visits
of personwho
mind andthen describethis personusingoneor morepersonaladjectivessuchas organized,
classy,poor, stylish, friendly, modern,traditional,popular,or whateverpersonaladjectives
you can use.
As shown in Table 6.6, after direction, self-concept measurementuses 8 items which

items),
ideal
items),
(2
(2
self-concept
social self-concept(2
consistsof actual self-concept
items) and ideal social self-concept (2 items) with a 7-point Likert-type scale, anchored
from I= strongly disagreeto 7= strongly agree.
Brand identification
The secondcomponent of brand equity measurement- brand identification - uses6 items,
6-item
is
(1992).
This
developed
by
Mael
Ashforth
scale
and
one of most widely
originally
in
identification.
As
Table
6.6, these items are
shown
of
organizational
used measurements
hotcl/restaurant
by
brand name. All
the
the
changing
organization's
name
with
modified
items of brand identification use a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from I=
strongly
disagreeto 7= strongly agree.

Lifestyle
The third component of brand equity measurement - lifestyle - uses 3 items adopted from
Del Rio et al. (2001), Vazquez et al. (2002) and Johnson et al. (2006). As shown in Table 6.6,
this research employs 3 items for lifestyle with a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored from I
= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree: "This brand reflects my personal lifestyle.,, "This
brand is totally in line with my lifestyle. " And, "Staying in this brand/visiting this brand
lifestyle.
"
my
supports
Perceivedquality
Generally, two different perspectives have been adopted regarding measurement of
perceivedquality: disconfirmation and performance-only approach.The performance-only
approachfocuseson customers'perceptionsrather than customers'expectationstogether as
the disconfirmation approach suggested (Martinez Caro and Martinez Garcia, 2007).
McDougall and Levesque(1994) suggestedthat including an expectation scoreon a service
-156-
Chqpter 6 Methodolo
JNam. 2008
due
fact
inefficient
be
instrument
to
the
that people tend to
unnecessaryand
may
quality
indicate consistentlyhigh expectationratingsand their perception scoresrarely exceedtheir
Taylor,
1992;
Brown
1993;
Cronin
(e.
Many
and
et
al.,
g.,
researchers
expectations.
Parasuramanet al., 1994; Teas, 1994) also posited that a performance-only approach is a
bettermeansof measuringservicequality. Thus, the measurementschemeof this researchis
focuses
that
on customers'perceptionsrather than customers'
approach
a performance-only
is
SERVPERF
is,
That
to
this
very
similar
rather than the wellmeasurement
expectations.
known SERVQUAL. As shown in Table 6.6, the final component's measurementfrom
(1998),
items
Ekinci
Ekinci
(2001)
10
et
al.
and
uses
adopted
perceived quality Madanoglu (2004). Theseitems consistof physical quality (5 items) and staff behaviourand
items
Likert-type
items).
7-point
Perceived
(5
a
use
scale ranging from I
quality
attitude
strongly disagreeto 7= strongly agree.
(2) Personal Values
The most widely used personal values inventories in consumer research are the RVS and
LOV (Beatty et al., 1985). The RVS consists of 18 instrumental values (ideal modes of
behaviour) and 18 terminal values (ideal end-state of existence) (Pitts and Woodside, 1983).
Unfortunately, RVS has encountered criticism for lack of relevance to the values of daily
life. The response to this criticism is the development and testing of the more parsimonious
LOV, which derives mainly from RVS's terminal values (Veroff et al., 1981; Kahle, 1983;
Zins, 1998). Although
have
tested both RVS and LOV scales, the
many researchers
is
is
better
than
that
other
not very strong. Both RVS and LOV scales have
any
one
evidence
in
(e.
Vinson
1977;
Prakash
consumption
areas
several
g.,
and
effective
et
al.,
proven
Munson, 1985; Beatty et al., 1985; Madrigal and Kahle, 1994; Madrigal, 1995; Keng and
Liu, 1997; Shim and Eastlick, 1998; Zins, 1998). Therefore, this research employs RVS and
LOV simultaneously. In particular, this research adopts only instrumental values of RVS
because LOV arose from a theoretical base of values proposed by RVS's instrumental
items
18
6.6
Table
Finally,
shows
of RVS's instrumental values and 9 items of LOV
values.
items
All
for
this
of personal values use a 7-point Likert-type scale
research.
adopted
ranging from I= very unimportant to 7= very important.
-157-
Chapter 6 Methodolo
JNam. 2008
(3) Value for Money

In the field of marketing, value for money measurementhas been according to one of two
The
dimension-based
dimension-based
measurement.
measurement
and
global
ways:
lie
factors
beneath
that
the value for money,
to
the
examine
measurementsgenerally aim
for
how
improve
direction
Global
to
value
money.
on
measurement
and give specific
in
for
the behavioural model (Petrick,
the
to
money
generally aims understand role of value
2002; Al-Sabbahy et al., 2004). One of the objectivesof this researchis to examinewhether
between
brand
brand
loyalty.
for
the
equity
and
money
moderates
relationship
or not value
Therefore,this researchmeasuresvalue for money by the global method, adoptedfrom AlSabbahyet al. (2004). Respondentsrate their evaluation of value for money on a 7-point
Likert-type scale:from I= extremely bad value to 7= extremely good value.
(4) Customer Satisfaction and Overall Brand Equity
Customersatisfaction and overall brand equity are usedto examine the concurrent validity
Churchill
(1979)
brand
scale.
proposedthat concurrentvalidity of the scale exists
equity
of
if it shows high correlation with other measuresof a closely related or the sameconstruct.
Customer satisfaction measurementoccurs with I item adopted from Spreng and Mackoy
(1996). Respondentsplot their satisfactionon a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from I=
dissatisfied
Overall
7=
brand
to
satisfied.
completely
equity measurementuses
completely
I item adopted from Yoo and Donthu (2001), in which responseis to: "If there is another
brand as good as this brand, I prefer to stay in this brand/visit this brand." A 7-point Likerttype scalerangesfrom I= strongly disagreeto 7= strongly agree.
(5) Brand Loyalty
In general, measurementof brand loyalty has been according to one of three avenues:
behavioural measurements, attitudinal measurements and composite measurements.
According to Rundle-Thiele and Bennett (2001), different types of markets may require
different methods for measuring brand loyalty. After
considering brand loyalty
characteristicsand market type, they suggestedthat attitudinal measurements,such as brand

intention
brand
to purchase,are useful in the service market.
and
commitment
preference,
Many researchers (e.g., Jain et al., 1987; Biong, 1993; Bloemer and Kasper, 1995;
-158-
Chqpter 6 Methodolo
JNam. 2008
Hallowell, 1996) maintained that behavioural measurement,such as purchase sequence,

insight
into
yield
not
a
comprehensive
may
purchaseproportion and purchaseprobability,
the underlying reasons for loyalty, and they suggestedthat brand loyalty should be
brand
loyalty
Thus,
this
measures
research
with the
constructs.
approachedas attitudinal
(1996)
from
items
Zeithaml
4
et
al.
and B loemeret al.
adopted
attitudinal constructand uses
(1999): "1 will recommend this brand to someonewho seeks my advice (word-of-mouth
brand/visit
in
brand
(purchase
I
"
"Next
this
this
time
stay
will
communications).
intention)." "Even if another brand offers more attractive prices, I will stay in this
brand/visit this brand (price sensitivity)." And, I will switch to other brands if I experience
behaviour).
items
"
brand
loyalty
All
brand
(complaining
this
of
a problem with
from
I=
disagree
Likert-type
7
7-point
to
scale,
ranging
strongly
use
a
measurement
strongly agree.
6.4.2Questionnaire Layout
targetdifferent segmentsof the hospitality
The two differentversionsof the questionnaire
for
in
hotel
All
two
the
the
versions
are
similar
questions
except
or restaurant.
categoriesThequestionnaireincludesthreesections.In
lists of the brandnamesandvisit experiences.
brands.Table6.7 andTable
the first section,respondents
receivea list of restaurant/hotel
6.8showthe listsof restaurantandhotelbrandsincludedin the questionnaires.
Table 6.7: List of RestaurantBrandsIncluded in the Questionnaire
0 Angus SteakHouse
El Caf6 Rouge
0 Harvester
13 Pizza Hut
1:1 ASK
13 Cafd Uno
0 Harry Ramsden's
0 TGI Friday's
" Burger King
13 Chef& Brewer
1:1KFC
13 Rat & Parrot
" Beefeater
0 Chicago Rock Cafd
0 LaTasca
13 Richoux.
" Bella Italia
0 CostaCoffee
13 Little Chef
13 Starbucks
" Brewers Fayre
1:1 Frankie & Benny's
11McDonald's
13 Yellow River Cafd
1:1 Brown
El Garfunkels
1:1 Nando's
0 Wetherspoon
0 Caffe Nero
13 Hard Rock Cafd
1:1 Pizza Express
1:1 Wimpy
0 Other RestaurantBrand
(Pleasedescribe)
-159-
JNam. 2008
For the restaurants,thirty-two major, UK, restaurantbrands constitute options in eight

British
hotels,
Asian,
food,
(fast
chicken,
roadside,
pizza/pasta,
pubs and
categories
Note
Restaurant,
2006;
2007).
(Key
and continental/therned/other)
cafes/restaurants
Table 6.8: List of Hotel BrandsIncluded in the Questionnaire
13 Quality Hotel
0 Best Western
[I Expressby Holiday Inn 0 Ibis
[I Britannia Hotels
Cl Forestdale
0 InnkeepersLodge
[I RamadaJarvis
" Comfort Inn
0 Fonnule I
D Jurys Inn
11 Regal Hotels
" Corus
0 Grand HeritageHotels 0 MacdonaldHotels 13 Small Luxury Hotel;
" Courtyard by Marriott
13 Great Inns of Britain
13Marriott
11 Swallow Hotels
[I Crown Plaza
0 GreeneKing Hotels
[I Novotel
[I Thistle
0 Days Inn
1:1 Hilton
11 Old English Inns
1:1Travelodge
[I De Vere
0 Holiday Inn
0 Premier Inn
13 Young& Co
[I Other Hotel Brand
(Pleasedescribe)
hotel
identifies
UK,
2007)
(2006;
Note
Hotel
list,
Key
hotel
thirty-two
the
For the
major,
brand
hotel/restaurant
brands.Beforecompletingthe questionnaire,
one
select
respondents
brands.
list
from
familiar
the
they
of
are
with which
The first section of the questionnaireestablishesthe degree of familiarity the respondents
have with the brand. Familiarity assessmentusestwo questions:"How long have you been
familiar
brand?
"
And,
"How
this
are you with this restaurant/hotel
restaurant/hotel
awareof
brand?" In addition, to revitalize memories associatedwith the restaurant/hotelbrand, the
frequency
includes
of restaurantvisits/hotel stays and purpose
questions
regarding
section
for restaurant visit/hotel stay. The final questions of the section deal with respondents'
for
brand.
for
hotel/restaurant
the
money
and
value
evaluationsof satisfactionwith
The secondsection of the questionnaireinvolves questionsmeasuring various components
brand
identification,
lifestyle
brand
quality,
and self-concept.
perceived
equity, namely:
of
In addition, this section involves questionsmeasuringrespondents'overall brand equity and
brand loyalty. Figure 6.4 exhibits the directions and sample questions extracted from
SectionB of the questionnaire.
-160-
JNam. 2008
Chgpter 6 Methodolo
Figure 6.4: Directions and SampleQuestionsExtracted from SectionB

Directions: Pleasetake a moment to think about the overall image of the hotel brand that you
selectedin section A. Consider the kind of person who typically visits this hotel brand. Imagine
this person in your mind and then describethis personusing one or more personal adjectives such
as organized, classy, poor, stylish, friendly, modem, traditional, popular, or whatever personal
disagreement
have
done
(,
Once
tick
this,
agreement
your
or
use.
you
you
can
with each
adjectives
of the following statements.Use the scaleof 1 (strongly disagree)to 7 (strongly agree).
Strongly
Disagree
Statement
The typical guest of this hotel has an image similar to
how I seemyself.
The image of this hotel is consistent with how I see
myself.
The typical guest of this hotel has an image similar to
how I like to seemyself.
The image of this hotel is consistentwith how I like to
seemyself.
Strongly
Agree
G) (D
(2)
Tr)
(D 0
Directions:Pleasetick (4) your agreement

with eachof the following statements
or disagreement
A.
Use
in
hotel
brand
that
thescaleof 1 (stronglydisagree)to 7
the
you
selected
section
regarding
(strongly agree).
Strongly
Disagree
Statement
If there is another hotel as good as this hotel, I prefer to
stay in this hotel.
I will recommendthis hotel to someonewho seeksmy
advice.
Next time I will stay in this hotel.
Even if anotherhotel offers more attractive prices, I will
stay in this hotel.
I will switch to other hotels if I experiencea problem
with this hotel.
(2)
Strongly
Agree
(3)
(a) @ (3) z
(Z)
The design of the last section of the questionnaireelicits respondents'personal values and
infortnation,
such as gender, age, nationality, educational
socio-demographic profile
background,employment status and annual personal income. Figure 6.5 shows directions
161
-
Chapter 6 Methodol=
JNam. 2008
from
C
Section
of the questionnaire.
extracted
and samplequestions
Figure 6.5: Directions and SampleQuestionsExtracted from Section C
Directions: The following is a list of things that people look for or want from life. Pleasestudy the
list carefully and then tick (4) each item basedon how important it is in your daily life. Use the
scaleof 1 (very unimportant) to 7 (very important).
Personal Values
Very
Very
Unimportant
Important
(0
Sense of belonging
Excitement
(2)
@ (D
(9) (a) (9) (5) Z
(D
(1)
(3)
(Z)
Security
(5)
(D
Self-respect
(5)_
Warm relationships with others

Self-fulfillment
Fun and enjoyment of life
(5)
(D
Directions: Pleasetick (q) the box or provide the information that most accuratelydescribesyou.
Q1. Gender:
Q2. Age Group:
0 Male
0 Female
0 16-24
- 13 25-34
13 55-64
0 35 -44
045-54
0 65 and over
Q3. Nationality: (
Q4. The highest level of education you attained:
13 GCSE
0 A-Level
11 GNVQ/NVQ
1:1 Undergraduate
Degree
0 Postgraduate
Degree
0 Other:(
6.4.3Questionnaire Pre-test
Pre-testinga questionnaireis a vital part of the researcheffort becausesuch activity allows
-162-
Chapter 6 Methodolo
JNam, 2008
for
in
from
to
the
check
ambiguities
population,
a sample
gauging anticipated reactions
levels
of understandingof the questions,and to provide assistance
questions,respondents'
for eliminating bias (Wright and Crimp, 2000). The pre-test is a means of discovering the
faults in a questionnairebefore using it in survey which provides data for researchanalysis
(Proctor, 2005). A carefully executedpre-test avoids costly and time-consuming mistakes
data
final
(Wright
findings
Crimp,
2000).
the
the
the
of
of
and
accuracy
enhances
and
For the currentresearch,a pre-test,conductedin February2007, usedthe two different

from
hotel
Twenty
different
the
restaurant.
people
and
questionnaireversions of
for the questionnaire
becamerespondents
7 studentsand
backgrounds
pre-test(6 academics,
incorporatesfair representation
7 ordinarypeople).A carefulchoiceof respondents
of the
in the pre-testcompletedonly
targetpopulation(WrightandCrimp,2000).Eachrespondent
one version of the questionnaire.Although most of the respondentsfound no
problems,the pre-testprocedurerevealedthat non-nativeEnglishspeakers
comprehension
have some difficulties in understandingthe contextof some questions,especiallyselfThe
conceptquestions.Therefore,the targetpopulationwasset as nativeEnglishspeakers.
final form of the questionnaire
appearsin AppendixA.
6.5 Data Analysis Methods

After collecting data from a target sample, the next step is to analyze the data to obtain
data
2003).
from
(Sekaran,
All
the
previous steps in the researchprocesssupport
meaning
this search for meaning, and meaningful information occurs by careful analysis and
interpretationof the collected data (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2004). This researchemploys
severalquantitative analysis techniques,which range from simple descriptive analysis, Ttest, ANOVA test and correlation analysis to more complex techniques: factor analysis,
reliability analysis and multiple regressionanalysis. Data analysis in this researchusesthe
SPSSsoftware program. Figure 6.6 provides a flowchart for the data analysisprocedure
-163-
Chapter 6 MethodolM
JNam, 2008
Figure 6.6: DataAnalYsisProcedure
Step 1
Validity and Reliability of the Scales

: FactorAnalysis:Examiningthe validity of the scales
Reliability Analysis(Cronbach'salpha):Checkingthe reliability of the scales
Step 2
Step 3.
Step 6
DescriptiveAnalysis
Checkingthe minimum,maximum,meanandstd.deviationof researchvariables
T-TestandANOVA Test
: T-Test:Comparingthe meanscoresof two groups(customertype and gender)
ANOVA Test:Comparingthe meanscoresof morethan two groups(age)
Step 4
Step5
Profiles of Respondents
Understanding
of the sample
characteristics
CorrelationAnalysis
Checkingthenatureof relationship
amongresearch
variables
RegressionAnalysis
Testingresearchhypothesesandmodel
6.5.1 Step 1: Profiles of Respondents

The first step of the data analysis summarizessurvey respondentsusing charts. Profiles of
from
(gender,
their
socio-demographics
arise
age, nationality, educational
respondents
background,employment statusand annual personal income) and their visit/stay behaviour
(frequency of restaurantvisits/hotel stays and purpose for restaurantvisit/hotel stay). The
is
data
this
analysis to understandcharacteristicsof the sample.
purposeof
-164-
Chgpter 6 Methodology
JNam, 2008
6.5.2 Step 2: Validity and Reliability of the Scales

A critical matter of importance is assuring that the instrument developed to measurea
particular concept is, indeed, accurately measuring the concept. The use of better
instrumentsensuresmore accuracyin results,which in turn, enhancesthe scientific quality
of the research.Therefore, reliability and validity are of particular concern (Sekaran,2003).
Ideally, any measurementmethod usedshould be reliable and valid (Bums and Bush, 2006).
Reliability refers to the consistency repeatedly reached. Validity refers to the degree to
focus
its
intended
instrument
(Proctor, 2005). Very briefly,
the
actually measures
which
reliability concerns stability and consistencyof measurement,and validity concerns the
researchmeasuring the appropriate concept (Sekaran,2003). Various forms of reliability
and validity appearin Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.7: Forms of Reliability and Validity
Test-retestreliability
Stability
Reliability
(accuracyin
measurement)
Parallel-fonnreliability
sistency
Goodness
of data
Split-half reliability
Validity
(Are we measuring
the right thing?)
Contentvalidity
Facevalidity II
II
Criterion-related
validity
Predictive II
Inter-itcmconsistencyreliability
Concurrent
Source: Sekaran(2003, p.204)
165-
Constructvalidity
Convergent II Discriminant
Chgj2ter6 Methodology
JNam, 2008
Reliability is an indication of the stability and consistency with which the instrument
instrument
finds
(1997)
Veal
(Sekaran,
2003).
that
the
stated
a
reliable
concept
measures
identical data at different times and from different samples of the population. Two
Test-retest
test-retest
reliability.
reliability
and
parallel-form
assessmentsof stability are
instrument
from
the
the
same
under as nearly
measurement using
repeating
arises
equivalent conditions as possible. Comparing the results of the two measurements
determines the degree of correspondence.The greater the difference, the lower is the
forms
Applying
two
equivalent
of the
parallel-form reliability produces
reliability.
Hawkins,
forms
have
1993).
Both
(Tull
for
instrument
the
and
same subjects
measuring
format,
items
the
and the only changesare the wordings and the
same
response
and
similar
Comparison
(Sekeran,
2003).
the
of the results of the two
of
questions
orders or sequences
instruments, item-by-item, determines degree of similarity. This also assumesthat the
is
lower
difference,
the reliability.
the
the
greater
Consistency is indicative of the homogeneity of the items in the measure that tap the
inter-item
Two
1993).
Hawkins,
(Tull
of
consistency
assessments
are
and
construct
is
Inter-item
consistency
reliability
consistency of
split-half
reliability.
consistency and
items
in
degree
items
To
independent
the
to
the
that
a
measure.
all
are
answers
respondent's
is
Cronbach's
they
the
the
correlate
will
with
one
another.
same
concept,
of
alpha
measures
determining
inter-item
Split-half
technique
consistency
of
reliability.
most popular
halves
between
instrument
It
(Sekaran,
2003).
two
the
of
correlations
an
reflects
reliability
divides the items in the instrument into two halves for comparison. High correlations
betweenhalves indicate high consistency(Malhotra, 2004). However, a problem with splithalf reliability is that estimatesof the coefficient of reliability are totally dependenton how
the items have been split. Different splits result in different correlations (McDaniel and
Gates,2006). Thus, in almost all cases,Cronbach'salpha is a perfectly adequatetechnique
for consistencyassessment(Sekaran,2003).
However, reliability is a necessary,but insufficient condition for a good measurement
(Chisnall, 1997; Webber, 1999). Becausevalidity operateson a completely different plane
than reliability, perfectly reliable measurementsthat are invalid at the same time are
-166-
JNam, 2008
instrument
2006).
Validity
to measure
Bush,
the
(Bums
an
ability
of
ensures
and
possible
the intended concept (Sekaran,2003). Table 6.9 lists several ways of assessingvalidity of
measurement.
Table 6.9: Typesof Validity
Description
Validity
Content validity
Facevalidity
Doesthe measureadequatelymeasurethe concept?

Do "experte' validate that the instrument measurcswhat its name
suggestsit measures?
Criterion-related validity
Does the measuredifferentiatein a manner that helps to predict a

criterion variable?
Concurrentvalidity
Does the measuredifferentiate in a manner that helps to predict a

criterionvariablecurrently?
Predictivevalidity
Does the measuredifferentiateindividuals in a mannerso as to help

predicta futurecriterion?
Construct validity
Doesthe instrumenttap the conceptastheorized?
Convergentvalidity
Do two instrumentsmeasuringthe conceptcorrelatehighly?
Discriminant validity
Does the measurehave a low correlation with a variable that is

supposedto be unrelatedto this variable?
Source: Sekaran(2003, p.208)

Content validity, sometimes called face validity, is the representativenessor sampling
instrument
(McDaniel
The
Gates,
2006).
the
the
of
measurement
content
and
adequacyof
is
items
to
the
assess
whether
or
validity
not
content
adequately representa
of
purpose
interest
1986).
Content
(Crocker
domain
Algina,
specific
of
and
construct
or
performance
by
judgment
involves
an expert as to the appropriatenessof the
a subjective
validity
in
is
determine
This
to
the
method
used
a
common
marketing
research
measurement.
Taylor,
(Kinnear
in
improve
1996).
In
this
to
and
order
measurements
research,
validity of
the face validity, a pre-test in the light of academics'opinions was conducted,and the target
English
speakers.
set
as
native
population was
Criterion-related validity examines the ability of a measuring instrument to predict a
-167-
Chgj2ter6 Methodolo
JNam, 2008
is
This
2006).
Gates,
(McDaniel
designated
validity
established
and
as a criterion
variable
it
is
(Sekran,
individuals
differentiates
to
expected
predict
criterion
a
the
on
measure
when
2003). Two subcategoriesof criterion-relatedvalidity are concurrentand predictive validity.
Concurrentvalidity is the current extent to which one measureof a variable can predict a
is
Predictive
1993).
Hawkins,
the extent to which a
(Tull
validity
and
criterion variable
future level of a criterion variable can be predicted by a current measurement(McDaniel
brand
determines
In
the
2006).
Gates,
testing
this
equity scale's concurrent
research,
and
is
by
brand
Concurrent
the
scale
using
equity
examined
of
validity
and predictive validity.
brand
brand
validity
of
equity
predictive
while
equity,
customer satisfaction and overall
brand
loyalty.
by
is
using
examined
scale
Construct validity is the most difficult type of validity to establish (Churchill and Brown,
2004). This validity indicates how well the results obtained from the use of the measure fit
the theories around which the test is designed (Sekaran, 2003). Thus, construct validity
being
how
it
the
the
theory
measured
construct
and
relates to
of
nature
of
sound
requires a
discriminant
Assessing
2004).
(Malhotra,
convergent
and
another construct
validities
by two
different
establishes construct validity.
Highly
correlated scores obtained
instruments that purport to measure the same concept establish convergent validity.
However, two instruments, measuring different concepts not highly correlated, support
discriminant validity (McDaniel and Gates, 2006).
6.5.2.1Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is one of the most widely used approachesin establishing construct validity
(Crocker and Algina, 1986; Sekaran, 2003). Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical
into
information
in
large
the
to
contained
a
a
number of variables
method used summarize
factors.
The
is
factor
to simplify the
main
or
purpose
of
subsets
of
analysis
smaller number
data (Hair et al., 2006). This method enablesidentification of the separatedimensionsbeing
factor-loading
factor
for
by
the
variable
and
obtaining
survey
each
of each
measured
(Proctor, 2005). In this research,factor analysis examinesthe validities of personal values
-168-
Chgpter 6 MethodolQ&
JNam. 2008
and brand equity.

Factor-loadingrefers to the correlation betweeneachfactor retained and eachof the original
importance
in
is
factor-loading
the
Each
the
of
variable
measuring
of
a measure
variables.
is
higher
if
between
+1.0
to
factor.
Factor-loading
and
a variable closely
can
vary
each
-1.0
factordetermining
With
2006).
factor
(Hair
the
to
to
significance
of
regard
et al.,
relates a
loading, Hair et al. (2006) suggestedguidelines for identifying significant factor-loadings
basedon samplesize (SeeTable 6.10).
Table 6.10: Guidelines for Identifying Significant Factor Lodgings Basedon SampleSize
Sample Size Needed for Significance
Factor Loading
0.30
350
0.35
250
0.40
200
0.45
150
0.50
120
0.55
100
0.60
85
0.65
70
0.70
60
0.75
50
Source: Hair et al. (2006. p. 128)

The present research uses the guideline suggested by Hair et al. (2006) to identify
Consideration
factor-loadings.
of sample size of present research establishes
significant
acceptablefactor-loading and cut-off value.
6.5.2.2 Reliability Analysis
Reliability is a function of internal consistencyof inteffelatednessof items (Schmitt, 1996).

A reliability analysis assessesthe internal consistency among items. As Sekaran (2003)
is
Cronbach's
alpha one of the most commonly used indicators of internal
suggested,
-169-
Chapter 6 Methodolo
JNam, 2008
internal
Cronbach
's
factor
Thus,
alpha
estimates
analysis, employing
after
consistency.
for
the presentresearch.
consistencyreliability
Cronbach'salpha can range from 0.0 to 1.0 and will be closer to I if internal consistency
level
(1994)
Cronbach's
Peterson
is
high
2005).
(Pallant,
that
the
suggested
of
reliability
0.95
depending
between
be
0.60
the
the
at
maximum
and
on the
at
minimum
alpha should
type of research.Table 6.11 shows the acceptablelevels of Cronbach's alpha summarized
by Peterson(1994).
Table 6.11: AcceptableLevel of Cronbach'sAlpha

Authors
Situation
Recommended
Kaplan and Saccuzzo (1982, p. 106).
Basic research
Applied research
0.70-0.80
0.95
Murphy and Davidshofer (1988, p.89)
Unacceptablelevel
Low level
Moderateto high level
High level
Below 0.60
0.70
0.80-0.90
Above 0.90
Nunnally (1967, p.226)
Preliminaryresearch
Basicresearch
Appliedresearch
0.50-0.60
0.80
0.90-0.95
Nunnally (1978, p.245-246)
Preliminaryresearch
Basicresearch
Appliedresearch
0.70
0.80
0.90-0.95
Hair et al. (1998, p.612)
Exploratory research
Common acceptablelevel
0.60
0.70
Levels
Source: Adapted from Peterson(1994, p.382)
Cronbach'salphais that it is quite sensitiveto the numberof itemsin

Oneissuein assessing
the scale(Pallant,2005). BecauseCronbach'salpha has a positive relationshipwith the
increasing
degree
in
items,
items
the
the
the
scale,
number
of
of
evenwith
same
numberof
intercorrelation,will increaseCronbach'salpha.Thus, scaleswith largenumbersof items
Although
have
requirements.
stringent
more
manydifferentlevelsof Cronbach'salpha
must
lower
limit for Cronbach'salphais 0.70(Pallant,2005;
the
areacceptable, generallyagreed
Hair et al., 2006).
-170-
JNam. 2008
ChgpteE6 Methodology
6.5.3 Step 3: Descriptive Analysis

The third step of the data analysis is to obtain a generaloverview of the researchvariables
by computing mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation. Since descriptive
analysis is the most efficient means of summarizingthe characteristicsof large data sets,
in
become
is
foundations for subsequent
typically
the
analysis,
use
and results
investigations(Bums and Bush, 2006; McDaniel and Gates, 2006). In this research,most
commonly used statistics associatedwith frequencies:measuresof central tendency(mean,
minimum and maximum) and a measureof variability (standarddeviation) are computedto
describeall the researchvariables.
6.5.4 Step 4: T-Test and ANOVA Test

T-test and ANOVA test comparethe mean scoresof more than two groups. In this research,
T-test identifies differencesbetweentwo groups in terms of customer type and gender,and
ANOVA test identifies differencesamongsix agegroups.To interpret the results of T-testor
ANOVA test, the meaning of the F-ratio and p-value needto be delineated.A calculatedFbetween
divided
by
the
the
the variance within the groups.
variance
groups,
ratio represents
So, the F-ratio is simply the ratio of these two estimates of variance. A large F-ratio
indicatesmore variability betweenthe groups,than within each group (Pallant, 2005). Thus,
a large F-ratio leads to the rejection of null hypothesiswith no difference in meansacross
large
does
F-ratio
However,
not indicate the rejection of null hypothesis, and pgroups.
be
less
to
than 0.05 for the F-ratio in order for it to be regardedas significant
value needs
(Braceet al., 2006).
6.5.5 Step 5: Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis,computedusing the correlation coefficient, r, is a meansof measuring
the strength or closenessof the relationship between two variables (Fleming and Nellis,
1991). The correlation coefficient varies between -1.00 and 1.00, with zero representing
171
-
Chapter 6 Methodo
JNam. 2008
absolutely no association between two variables. Higher correlation coefficients indicate

between
levels
two variables.In addition, the correlation coefficient
stronger
of association
direction
be
depending
the
on
of the relationship between
can either positive or negative,
two variables(Hair et al., 2006).
A correlation matrix provides an overview of significance levels, direction and strength of
the relationship among all research variables, and the matrix is a table showing the
intercorelationsamong all variables (Hair et al., 2006). This is particularly significant in
ion-based
data
that
analysis and modeling techniques.Therefore, this
uses regress
research
initial
develop
to
an
senseof the type of correlations
a
correlation
matrix
researchproduces
amongthe researchvariablesprior to subsequentanalyses.
6.5.6 Step 6: Regression Analysis

In the final stageof analysis for this research,regressionanalysis tests researchhypotheses
is
Regression
the
analysis a statistical technique based on correlation but
model.
and
interrelationships
in
the
sophisticated
exploration
of
a
more
among
variables
a set
allowing
(Pallant, 2005). In other words, regressionanalysis is a statistical technique usedto analyze
the relationship between a single dependent (criterion) variable and one or more
independent(predictor) variables. The objective of regressionanalysis is to predict a single
dependentvariable from knowledge gained from one or more independentvariables. Using
is
independent
variable
simple regression; with two or more independent variables
one
involved, it becomesmultiple regression(Hair et al., 2006).
R square(RI) statistic is the squareof a measuredcorrelation between the observedvalue
and the predicted value and indicatesthe percentageof the variance in the criterion variable
as explained by the entire set of predictor variables (Tull and Hawkins, 1993). Thus, the
larger R2is, the more the dependentvariable associateswith the independentvariable being
usedfor prediction. However, although R2 provides an indication of the explanatorypower
level
indicate
it
does
the
a
of significance. The F-ratio provides a measureof
not
of
model,
larger
F-ratio indicates that variance explains more in the
A
the
significance of
model.
-172-
Chapter 6 Methodolo
JNam. 2008
in
be
for
F-ratio
be
less
0.05
the
to
The
to
than
order
regardedas
p-value needs
model.
is
how
beta
(P)
2006).
The
(Brace
a
measure
of
strongly each
value
et al.,
significant
independentvariable influences the dependentvariable. Use of the beta (P) value allows
direct comparison between independentvariables to determine which variables have the
is
beta
(P)
The
dependent
influence
the
value
significant when the p-value
variable.
on
most
is lessthan 0.05 (Hair et al., 2006).
In particular, Baron and Kenny (1986) suggestedthe methods in which mediating and
demonstrated
They
the mediating
to
analysis.
moderating analysescould apply regression
it
by
to
comparing
a series of alternatively
model
of
a
proposed
effects
moderating
and
Kenny's
(1986)
Baron
In
this
and
methods using regression
research,
models.
specified
brand
for
the
and
moderating
equity
effect
of
value
effect
of
mediating
analysis examine
money in the researchmodel.
6.6 Summary
The methodologyadoptedfor the presentresearchis:
for
this research consists of native English speakerswho are
The
target
population
familiar with restaurantand hotel brandsin the UK.
- This researchadoptsconveniencesampling.
9 Data collection occursthrough a personallyadministeredquestionnaire.
identifies
faults
in
before
Conducting
the
the
the
pre-test
a
questionnaire
questionnaire
-
mai n survey.
is
SPSS
Data
the
softwareprogram.
via
analysis
include
Respondents'
their socio-demographics (gender, age, nationality,
profiles
educational background, employment status and annual personal income) and visit/stay
behaviour (frequency of restaurantvisit/hotel stay and purpose for restaurantvisit/hotel
stay).
-173-
Chqpter 6 Methodolo
JNam. 2008
9 Factor analysisexaminesthe validity of the scales.

- Reliability analysis(Cronbach'salpha) verifies the reliability of the scales.
Descriptive analysis checks the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of
researchvariables.
T-testcomparesthe meanscoresof two groupsin terms of customertype and gender.
- ANOVA-test comparesthe mean scoresof more than two groups in terms of age.
- Correlation analysischecksthe natureof relationshipsamong researchvariables.
hypotheses.
Regression
tests
analysis
research
model
and
e
-174-
CHAPTER 7
Chgpter 7. Findings of the Research
JNam, 2008
CHAPTERSEVEN
FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH
7.1 Introduction
This chapter presentsthe findings of the research.Analysis of the data used the Statistical
Packagefor the Social Sciences (SPSS 14.0) which allowed factor analysis, reliability
ANOVA
T-test,
descriptive
test, correlation analysis and regression
analysis,
analysis,
hotels
because
focuses
This
their services represent
and
restaurants
on
research
analysis.
frequentpurchasesand use by many customersof the hospitality industry. For the purposes
form
facilitates
data
378
to
data
the use
two
merge
a
sample
sets
size
of
which
analysis,
of
key
Hotels
the
test
of
research
model.
and
restaurants
are
statistical
of a more robust
likely
hospitality
to share many
that
they
the
which
means
sector
are
of
components
for
T-test
"value
In
that
the
revealed
only
money" variable shows
addition,
similarities.
between
hotel
(See
differences
customers
customers
and restaurant
statistically significant
Table7.10). This chapterconsistsof six parts. The first part profiles respondentsin terms of
their socio-demographicsand visit/stay behaviour.The secondsection presentsthe validity
brand
brand
loyalty
The
third part
values,
equity
and
scales.
of
personal
and reliability
data,
descriptive
the
of
and the fourth section deals with T-test and
analysis
presents
-176-
Chgj2ler 7. Findings ofthe &search
JNam, 2008
ANOVA test. The fifth section concerns correlation analysis among research variables.
Finally, regression analysis tests the research model and hypotheses.
7.2 Profiles of the Respondents

The field survey, conducted in England in November 2007, involved randomly distributed
questionnaires to individuals found in various places including a high street, shopping
complexes, train stations and an international airport. Participants received one of two types
of questionnaires (hotel or restaurant version). For a high response rate, an offer of a S2
gift (e.g., instant lottery ticket) encouraged participation. In particular, a questionnaire pretest revealed that non-native English speakers have some difficulties in understanding the
from
Therefore,
some
questions.
all
samples
of
were
native English speakers. The
context
from
individuals
397
responses
produced
and among them, 378 were used for data
survey
analysis. The socio-demographic profiles and visit/stay behaviour (frequency of restaurant
visit/hotel stay and purpose of restaurant visit/hotel stay) of the respondents are:
Customer type: Figure 7.1 shows the customer type respondents represent.
Figure 7.1: Customer Type Respondents Represent
Restaurant Customers
iz
47%
E Hotel Customers
........
0 Restaurant Customers
Hotel Customers
53%
From the 378 respondents, 199 were hotel customers, 53% of the total, while 179 restaurant
customers constituted the remaining 47%. Figure 7.1 shows that a good balance was
achievedfor customertype.
Gender: Figure 7.2 shows the distribution of sample by gender.
177-
Chantp-- " '-*--'-*----
JNam, 2008
Figure 7.2: Gender Distribution of Respondents
0 Femal
Female
48%
Male
52%
Figure 7.2 shows that the number of males (52%) was slightly more than that of females
(48%) in the sample. As can be seenin Figure 7.2, a good gender balance was achieved.
Age Group:
Six age groupings were used for this research. Figure 7.3 represents the
distribution of age according to these age groups.
Figure 7.3: Age Group Distribution of Respondents

26 'In
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over
In terms of age, 24% of the respondentswere between 16 and 24 years of age; 26% were
between25 and 34; 22% were between35 and 44; 14% were between45 and 54; 8% were
between 55 and 64, and 6% were 65 and older. The 25 to 34 years of age group was the
biased
28%
The
toward
was
of the
only
age
range
people,
with
young
populous.
most
samplingbeing over 45 yearsold.
Nationality:
Nationalities of respondents were classified into two groups. Figure 7.4
178-
Chgpler 7. Findings of the Research
JNam, 2008
represents the nationalitY distribution of respondents.
Figure 7.4: Nationality Distribution of Respondents
Other Native English

Speakers
9%
0 British
M Other Native English Speakers
Iritish
91%
As mentioned earlier, all of the chosenrespondentswere native English speakers.Among

them, 91% of the subjects identified themselves as British. The other 9% consisted of other
native English speakers including Americans, Canadians, Australians and South Africans.
Educational Level of the Respondents: Figure 7.5 depicts the educational backgroundsor
subjects.
Figure 7.5: Educational Level Distribution of Respondents
39%
GCSE
A-Level
GNVQ/NVQ
Undergrad.
Postgrad.
Other
The educational level categories reveal that the majority of the respondents had relatively
high educational backgrounds as 62% of the sample held undergraduate or postgraduate
degrees. Respectively, 9%, 14%, 6% and 9% of the respondents identified GCSE, A-level,
GNVQ/NVQ and other qualification as their highest educational level attained.
179-
JNam, 2008
Chgj2ler 7. Findings of the Research
Annual Personal Income: The distribution of average annual personal income of subjects
appearsin Figure 7.6.
Figure 7.6: Distribution of Annual Personal Income of Respondents
24%
10,000 to
19,999
Lessthan
10,000
20,000 to
29,999
30,000 to
39,999
40,000 to
49,999
Ovel !)0,000
Average annual personal income was categorized into six groups. Of the 378 respondents,
90 people responded that their annual personal income was less than
E 10,000,
24%
of the sample. More than 30% of the respondents reported that they earn
representing
over E 30,000 a year.
Current
Employment
Status: Figure 7.7 shows the current employment status of
respondents.
Figure 7.7: Current Employment Status of Respondents
9 '/,,
18%
9%
mm0
Full-time
employee
Part-time
5%
8%
3%
6%
2%
Self-employed Umemployed
employee
180-
Retired
Housework
Student
Other
JNam, 2008
With regard to employment status of respondents, Figure 7.7 shows most of respondents
belong to the full-time employee category (49%), followed by student (18%), part-time
employee (9%), retired (8%), housework (6%), self-employed (5%), unemployed (3%) and
other (2%).
Frequency of Restaurant Visit/Hotel
Stay: Figure 7.8 represents respondents' frequency
of restaurant visits during the previous six months or hotel stays during the previous two
years.
Figure 7.8: Frequency of Restaurant Visits/Hotel Stays
- Restaurant
Customers
1 time
More than 5 times

31%
E1 time
E 2-3 times
E34-5times
13More than 5 times
mes
4-5 tim
23%
brand
during
have
this
the last six months?
times
How
visited
a
restaurant
of
you
many
-
- Hotel Customers
1 time
13%
More than 5 times

22%
E1 time
N 2-3 times
134-5times
C3More than 5 times
4-5 times_,,, 27%
3 times
38%
- How many times have you stayed in a hotel of this brand during the last two years?
As shown in Figure 7.8, for restaurant customers, 14% of respondents visited a restaurant
only once during the previous six months. The remaining 86% repeated visits ranging
from 2 to 3 times (32%), 4 to 5 times (23%) and more than 5 times (31%). For hotel
in
13%
of respondents stayed a hotel only once during the previous two years.
customers,
The remaining 87% repeated stays ranging from 2 to 3 times (38%), 4 to 5 times (27%)
181
-
Chapter T Findings of the Research
JNam. 2008
for
balance
(22%).
Figure
7.8
5
that
achieved
times
a good
was
shows
and more than
frequency of restaurant visits/hotel stays.
Purpose for Restaurant Visit/Hotel
Stay: Figure 7.9 shows respondents' purposes for
restaurantvisit or hotel stay.

Figure 7.9: Purpose for Restaurant Visit/Hotel Stay
- Restaurant Customers
Other
18%
Routine lunch
23%
Celebrating an event
16%
Family meal
19%
Routine evening meal

20%
Business meal
4%
E Routine lunch
N Family meal
13Business meal
* Routine evening meal
* Celebrating an event
0 Other
- Hotel Customers
Businessand leisure
15%
Other
2%
Business
25%
0 Business
0 Leisure
0 Business and leisure
13Other
Leisure
58%
For restaurant customers, this figure reveals that the majority of respondents visited the
4%
leisure
Only
for
for
identified
the
the
their
of
samples
purposes.
purpose
restaurants
for
Forty-three
business
the
the
the
percent
of
sample
restaurant
meal.
visited
as
a
visit
lunch
19%
I
I%
evening
or
an
meal,
while
of the respondents
a
routine
and
of
purpose
family
for
their
as
a
visiting
meal or celebrating an event, respectively.
purposes
specified
Of the samples, 18% chose the "other" option from the questionnaire. For hotel customers,
the main purpose of a hotel stay was for leisure (58%). Other reasons for a hotel stay
included business (25%), business and leisure (15%) and other (2%). As can be seen in
Figure 7.9, the purpose for restaurant visit/hotel stay was biased toward leisure purposes.
182-
Chqpter 7. Findings ofthe Research
JNam. 2008
7.3 Assessments of Validity and Reliability

One of the objectives of the present researchis to assessthe validity and reliability of
personal values, brand equity and brand loyalty scales. To this end, two separate
exploratory factor analyseswere performed for personal values and brand equity scales.
Furthermore, three separateCronbach's alpha assessmentswere employed to determine
the reliability of personalvalues,brand equity and brand loyalty scales.
7.3.1 Examination of the Personal Values Scale

The personalvalues scale is factor analysedin order to find possible emerging dimensions.
Principal componentextraction with a Varimax Rotation, applied to the 27 items of personal
values scale, provides the construct validity of the scale. Furthermore, Cronbach's alpha
examinesthe reliability of the personalvaluesscale.
7.3.1.1Validity and Reliability of the PersonalValuesScale

The 27 items of the personalvalues scalewere subjectedto factor analysisusing SPSSwith
for
data.
Inspection of the correlation matrix revealsthe presence
the
evaluation
suitability
The
0.30
Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin
and
above.
coefficients
of
value is 0.945, exceeding
of many
the recommendedvalue of 0.60, and the Barlett's Test of Sphericity reaches statistical
(p=0.000),
supportingthe notion of factorability of the correlation matrix. Thus,
significance
the scalemeetsthe fundamentalrequirementsof factor analysis.The final result of principal
Rotation
Varimax
a
analysis
with
suggestsa five factor solution. Table 7.1
component
showsthe results of the factor analysis.
-183-
Chgpter 7. Findings ofthe Research
JNam. 2008
Table 7.1: Resultsof FactorAnalysis for the PersonalValues Scale

Scale
Factor Loadings
TFactor
Factor I
2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Communalities
Competence Values
Intellectual
Capable
Independent
Broad-minded
Imaginative
A senseof accomplishment
Ambitious
Courageous
0.75
0.72
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.63
0.61
0.58
0.68
0.71
0.66
0.65
0.55
0.70
0.60
0.53
Conformitv Values
0.74
0.73
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.56
Obedient
Self-controlled
Polite
Responsible
Logical
__Clean
0.66
0.62
0.69
0.69
0.59
0.47
CoMpassion Values
0.72
0.72
0.66
0.61
0.59
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Cheerful
Loving
0.67
0.75
0.74
0.69
0.65
Self-oriented Values
0.75
0.74
0.66
0.64
0.64
Security
Self-fulfillment
Senseof belonging
Self-respect
0.67
0.73
0.74
0.61
0.70
Hedonism Values
Excitement
Warmrelationshipswith others
Fun and enjoymentof life
Eigenvalue
% of Variance
0.77
0.60
0.59
1
12.33
2.02
1.50
1.19
1.06
19.03%
13.49%
13.18%
13.16%
8.21%
1
1
1
ExtractionMethod:PrincipalComponentAnalysis.RotationMethod:VarimaxRotation
Item loadinglessthan 0.40 omitted.
-184-
0.79
0.74
0.73
Total: 67.09%
JNam. 2008
As appearing in Table 7.1, the result of the factor analysis supports a five factor solution
factor
five
1.
However,
the
solution does not replicate the
with eigenvalue exceeding
dimensions
These
findings
previous
researchers.
values'
of
of
personal
are
application
dimensions
that
of personal values may
consistentwith previous studies which suggested
(e.
Kahle,
1983;
Kahle
from
to
the
g.,
situation
next
et al., 1986; Prakash
one
vary slightly
and Munson, 1985; Homer and Kahle, 1988; Munson and McQuarrie, 1988; Crosby et al.,
1990). Moreover, previous researchershave not examined both RVS and LOV scales
five-factor
is
in
The
Therefore,
this
solution
empirical
studies.
new.
any
simultaneously
"
"conformity
labeled
"
factors
"competence
"compassion
five
values,
values,
were
resulting
five
"
The
factor
"hedonism
"
"self-oriented
respectively.
and
values"
values,
solution
values,
explained a total of 67.09% of the variance,with competencevalues contributing 19.03%,
13.49%,
13.18%,
values
compassion
contributing
values
contributing
selfconformity
oriented values contributing 13.16% and hedonism values contributing 8.21%. These
findings provide evidencefor constructvalidity of the scale.
In order to assessthe reliability of the scale,Cronbach'salpha assessesthe internal

five
factors
Table
7.2
the
the
the
of
scale.
shows
reliability
of
retained.
consistency
185-
JNam. 2008
Table 7.2: Reliability of the PersonalValues Scale

Item to total
Correlation
Items
Dimensions
Competence
Values
Conformity
Values
Com p assion
Values
Self-oriented
Intellectual
0.74
Capable
0.78
Independent
0.72
Broad-minded
0.73
Imaginative
0.64
A sense of accomplishment
0.74
Ambitious
0.64
Courageous
0.64
Obedient
0.57
Self-controlled
0.65
Polite
0.71
Responsible
0.71
Logical
0.59
Clean
0.55
Forgiving
0.71
Helpful
0.79
Honest
0.74
Cheerful
0.70
Loving
0.70
Security
0.64
0.73
Self-fulfillment
0.73
Sense of belonging
0.57
Self-respect
0.70
Excitement
0.70
0.73
0.75
Cronbach's
Alpha
0.90
0 84
.
0.89
0.86
Values
Hedonism
Values
I
0.85
As shown in Table 7.2, Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the "competence values,"

"conformity values," "compassionvalues," "self-oriented values," and "hedonism values"
-186-
Choter 7. Findino ofthe Research
JNam. 2008
dimensionsdisplay good internal consistencywith alpha values of 0.90,0.84,0.89,0.86

for
0.85
the
minimum
criteria
all
of
which
exceed
establishing scale
and
respectively,
reliability (>0.70). The results of the item-to-total correlation coefficients for the scalealso
for
"competence
from
dimension,
0.64
0.78
0.55
to
the
values"
and
range
appearsufficient
to 0.71 for the "conformity values" dimension, 0.70 to 0.79 for the "compassion values"
dimension, 0.57 to 0.73 for the "self-oriented values" dimension, and 0.70 to 0.75 for the
"hedonism values" dimension. Thus, no need arisesto eliminate any item to improve the
reliability of the scale. The results of this researchsupport the use of the competence
values,conformity values, compassionvalues,self-orientedvalues and hedonismvaluesas
separatedimensions.
As a result, the personal values scale with five dimensionsand 27 items seemsvalid and
reliable. Factor analysis supports the validity of the scale. Cronbach's alpha coefficients
five
dimensions.
the
of
reliability
support
also
7.3.2Examination of the Brand Equity Scale

In order to develop a valid and reliable brand equity scale, 27 items of brand equity were
factor
First,
to
component
principal
analysis with a Varimax Rotation,
subjected analysis.
brand
items
identified
27
the
the dimensions and provided
equity,
of
on
conducted
for
At
the next stage, regression analyses establishedthe
the
scale.
validity
construct
Finally,
Cronbach's
validity.
criterion-related
alpha assessedthe reliability of the
scale's
scale.
7.3.2.1 Construct Validity of the Brand Equity Scale

Factor analysis examined the validity of the brand equity scale, which consists of four
including
perceivedquality, brand identification, lifestyle and selfunderlying components
concept. Similar to the previous analysis, the principal component factor analysis with a
Varimax Rotation was performed with assessmentof suitability of the data for factor
-187-
Chgj2ter7. Findings ofthe Research
JNam, 2008
analysis.Inspection of the correlation matrix revealedthe presenceof many coefficients of

0.3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin measureof sample adequacy (0.935) and the
Barlett's Test of Sphericity (p= 0.000) appearedsufficient for supporting the factorability
fundamental
for
Therefore,
the
the
the
meets
scale
requirement
of
correlation matrix.
factor analysis. The final result of the principal component analysis with a Varimax
Rotation suggestsa five factor solution. Table 7.3 summarizesthe outcomesof the factor
analysis.
188-
C>
00
00
1,0
let
clq
r-
tA
rn
ch
V)
ri
fol
n 09 r- r- -0
= = c; i Z;i c;
+5
ei
4.)
CIS
u
00
%Z
er
ch
ce
"
w
"o
m> fo rq
00 cm Co
m
r-
e
r-
=
r-
in
%0
42
1
I
ON
00
.4
0
0
cl
; Lo
4-4
0
LA
:,
m
-5
0
>
4)
5?
-3
4.
a
cu
=
L
ce
ct
2
0
4-
2
0
4-
h ;20 20
r/
JZ
f,
t'
0.
M
';
e> 0
.E
Z,
n.
, .jj2
42
11
0
-3
-1L>
0
4.
0 -,-- =
93
-P
u
_cm
0
m
u
(2
c2
Ci. .c2. cu
4-
Ln
93
ei
. '2
.
tj
r- 2
m -r. tu
u
*0
r-
CA
4.)
M
14
r.-
15
N.
n
+,
..
t
4)
-0
9.)
15
4.)
-0
4)
4.
4.
0--
cu -wo E
0
.2
e 0
=
gr
-CJ
JA
00
,.:
Ei
A _A ce
22
-r.
li
-Z; 0
g
e
=
&A
;
-rI 0
0
=Ei ; w .-E E - -
CA
>
12
rz
"0
>%
0 u
Ei
-2
vgi
>
j3
41
Z)
4)
gEi. gEL -0
>, Z>, ,
a
Ei E
Ei Ei
mt
C;
Cli
rC;
C;
00
PC
S.
0
cl
tn
t-
00
1.01
00
o tn
t-
To
en
e-;
1
NO
0
,
el-
u
03
I
C14
--
4
.
C5
a
40.
E
a
cc
.4>
d
0
11
g
>
cl
4.0
; o.
=
06,
rA
4.)
-.
Q
4
0
En
-i
rA
4)
,..
o
0
j2
45
"
0
0
S
>,
E .4
.5
Ei
-0
0
=
-U,
>
: ::
.>
4
"a
41
cn .4
.0
o
o
0
be
"
V)
>,
'0
Cq
(A
>
g L i
Chgpler 7. Findings ofthe Research
JNam, 2008
As shown in Table 7.3, the result of the factor analysis revealed the presenceof five
five
factor
1.
The
solution explained a total of
componentswith eigenvaluesexceeding
74.21% of the variance,with 22.11%, 18.04%,13.75%,11.78%and 8.53% portions of the
loadings,
five
factors
The
number
of
strong
a
showed
and all
variance, respectively.
interpretation
factor.
The
five
factors
loaded
the
one
of
on
only
substantially
variables
differed slightly from previous assumptionsregardingthe four dimensionsof brand equity:
perceivedquality, brand identification, lifestyle and self-concept.As presentedin Table 7.3,
the first factor correspondedto the self-concept items, the second factor to the brand
identification items, and fifth factor to the lifestyle items. However, perceived quality
items were divided into two factors. The third factor was labeled "staff behaviour," since
this factor closely related to staff performance.And the fourth factor was named"physical
facilities,
it
because
"
to
and materials.
closely related equipment,
quality,
7.3.2.2 Criterion Related Validity of the Brand Equity Scale

Beyondfactor analysis,regressionanalysesestablished
the criterionvalidity of the brand
is
differentiates
Criterion-related
the
validity
established
when
measure
equity scale.
individuals in a criterion it is expectedto predict(Sekaran, 2003). Criterion validity
involvesconcurrentandpredictivevalidity of the scale.Concurrentvalidity is the extentto
be
individual's
to
the
can
used
estimate
of
a
variable
an
measure
currentscoreon
on
which
(Tull
different
the
or
a
closely
related
or
same,
variable
measure
andHawkins,1993).On
a
the other hand,predictivevalidity refersto the extentto which a scalecan accurately
itself
(Hair et al., 2000).
to
the
external
scale
event
predictsome
In this research, examining concurrent validity used customer satisfaction and overall
brand equity, while assessingpredictive validity used brand loyalty. The five dimensions
factor
derived
from
the
the
analysis, were considered independentvariables
scale, as
of
and each of the external measureswas regarded as a dependent variable. Table 7.4
between
linear
tests
the
the brand equity scale and customer
regression
surnmarises
satisfaction,overall brand equity and brand loyalty.
191
It
Cl
Co
00
lot
cz
cs
tl
-?
00
,0
"Ci
C#)
%C
ON
C*,
c;
C>
'r)
00
tfi
C)
c;
-1
1
00
el
Cli
CD
">1
=
0
10
r.
0
0000
000
PC
42
C14
00
It
00
ll:r
IRT
C14
CD
CD
(D
CD
CD
In
en
en
110
11
W)
C;
C;
110
10
C14
r-:
"q:
N
cis
94
cl
10
r.
en
C14
C14
C14
,o
(n
g
rq
.. 0
r-
I.
9
(=
.M
CY
v
rn
V
(U
LZ
10
14
(A
z u. 0.
I
eq
ChgjZter7. Findings ofthe Research
JNam, 2008
In the examinations of the relationship between the brand equity scale and customer
in
36%
brand
indicated
R2value
that
the
scale
explains
of
variance
the
equity
satisfaction,
level.
0.000
The
be
This
the
to
significant
at
statistically
appears
customer satisfaction.
in
brand
five
dimensions
indicated
make
significant
contributions
equity
that
of
all
results
estimatingcustomersatisfaction.
The second regression model assessedthe relationship of the brand equity scale and
is
brand
linear
that
the
The
brand
equity scale
regressionrevealed
result of
equity.
overall
brand
0.52
112value
The
in
(p=
0.000)
of
equity.
overall
estimating
indicatedthat the brand equity model explains52% of the variance in overall brand equity.
"Self-concepf' had the largest beta coefficient (0.26) followed by "brand identification"
(0,20), "perceived quality: physical quality" (0.18), "lifestyle (0.14) and "perceived
"self-concept"
(0.13).
This
behaviour"
that
the
strongest
made
means
staff
quality:
five
dimensions
found
All
brand
to make
to
equity.
were
contribution explaining overall
brand
(p=.
000).
degree
to
the
equity
overall
of
significant contributions
The regressionon brandloyalty also revealedthat the brandequity scaleis statistically

brand
indicated
brand
loyalty.
The
RI
in
(p=0.000)
the
that
value
predicting
significant
in
brand
loyalty.
five
dimensions
found
All
52%
to
of variance
were
equityscaleexplains
loyalty
"selfbrand
(p=
0.000).
in
Among
them,
estimating
contributions
makesignificant
brand
(0=0.26,
in
dimension
the
p=0.000)
predicting
made strongestcontribution
concept"
loyalty.
In summary, the brand equity scale with five dimensions and 27 items is statistically
brand
dependent
(customer
in
the
variables
satisfaction,
overall
significant explaining all
brand
finding
loyalty).
This
brand
the
the
supports
validity
of
criterion
related
equity and
is
(customer
that
Therefore,
the
concurrent
satisfactionand overall
conclusion
equity scale.
brand equity) and predictive (brand loyalty) validity of the brand equity scale are
established.
-193-
Chqj2ler 7. Findings ofthe Research
JNam. 2008
7.3.2.3 Reliability of the Brand Equity Scale

To determine the reliability of the brand equity scale, Cronbach's alpha cocff icicnts
findings
Table
7.5
the
the
summarizes
of internal consistency
measure.
examined
brand
for
five
dimensions
the
the
equity scale.
of
reliabilities
-194-
*d
V)
-t
rn
V)
Kri rn
00
--t
t-
C)
00
e C-9
rC'9 09C'9
oor
-E09C-9
Q
(D
C)
CD (D
CD CD (D
CD C)
v)
C)
CD cs
0, c>
r rz t- r- "0
(D
c;
c;
4. i
01)
44
-x
10
r_
: 2 -s
Kn
2 52-=
-2
.
0
b -0 r,Ei
.5 -Aeu
*
*;
0
0
0
0 0
ci
22
2 *
0,
.g n.
.2
12
im. .
ce
0
>
-Z
- c> u
o
(4
E 2 0
'
r.
-0 - 1. 9
ZI
A
ti0
W-4
e;
1-
o
r:
t^
>%
tb
o
g
14
m -m .2
e
tn
0
A.-
4-
ce
0
1--
4-
4.
4.
:i
4.
:1
vi
4.
0
u
t
0
0
cu
9
f. ;2 ;2 1t2 FE 1.
= F2
cl
14
fi
rn
c:
c:
9.
Im
rA
(D
A.,
t-
-5
.-
2
-
mi
r.
U
r
-1.
u .4
tu
-2
u u
e
(0,
j,
'
g r. .
m
-21
:5
CA.
:s
M
CT
qj
>
v
'
>,
ci
CA Ei
i
bi)
CA
29
0J3
>%
rA
.-
cz
e
In
z. 0
c:
Q)
9..
-$.4
c:
ci
10
92
.5
-r
Ci.
E E E'
1
ia
CY
>
0Q
Z t:
22(A
lu
KDW c2.
E
0 *r:
-. 0
iCA
4
0
r.
C,
,-
0
=
tA
0 0
=
r.
CA
CA
E > ;2;c- ;2 -, 112

cq
mw
cu
CO
OCJ -
2.
gi
2
40 iP,z
vi
Chgpler 7. Findings ofthe Research
JNam. 2008
As shown in Table 7.5, Cronbach's alpha coefficients of "self-concept," "brand

identification," "perceived quality: staff behaviour," "perceived quality: physical quality,"
0.88,
dimensions
0.95,0.93,0.88,0.85,
"lifestyle"
and
respectively.These values
are
and
exceedthe minimum criteria for establishingthe scale'sreliability. The results of item-tototal coefficients suggestthat eachitem contributessignificantly to the measurementof the
dimension
"self-concept"
from
Coefficients
0.75 to 0.85;
the
of
range
construct.
relevant
the "brand identification" dimension rangesfrom 0.70 to 0.88; the "perceived quality: staff
behaviour" dimension rangesfrom 0.63 to 0.79; the "perceived quality: physical quality"
dimension ranges from 0.54 to 0.78, and the "lifestyle" dimension ranges from 0.74 to
0.80.
As a result, the brand equity scale with five dimensionsseemsvalid and reliable. Factor
linear
regressiontests support construct validity and criterion validity of the
analysis and
scale.Cronbach'salpha cocfflcients also supportthe reliability of the five dimensions.
7.3.3Examination of the Brand Loyalty Scale

Assessmentof the reliability of the brand loyalty scaleemployed Cronbach'salpha, which
inter-item
indicates
degree
the
that the scale's items are
consistency
which
of
provides
(Brace
2006).
the
et
same
underlying
construct
al.,
measuring
7.3.3.1 Reliability of the Brand Loyalty Scale

The reliability test, which measuresthe internal consistency of a scale, examines the
Table
brand
loyalty
7.6
the
scale.
summarizesthe results of this test.
of
reliability
-196-
Chgpter 7. Findings ofthe REsearch
JNam, 2008
Table 7.6: Reliability of the Brand Loyalty Scale

Item to total
Correlation
Brand Loyalty Scale

I will recommendthis hotel/restaurantto someonewho seeksmy
advice.
Next time I will stay in this hotel/restaurant.
Even if anotherhotel/restaurantoffers more attractiveprices,I will
stay in this hotel/visitthis restaurant.
(Reverse)I will switch to other hotel/restaurantif I experiencea
problemwith this hotel/restaurant.
Cronbach's
Alpha
0.66
0.73
0.82
0.76
0.49
The Cronbach'salpha coefficient of the brand loYalty scale is 0.82. This value exceedsthe
recommendedinternal consistencythreshold(0.70). Item-to-total correlation coefficients for
the scale range from 0.49 to 0.76. Therefore, no need appearsto force elimination of any
item. Theseresults indicate that the brand loyalty scaleis reliable.
7.4 Descriptive Analysis

This researchperformsdescriptiveanalysesof all variables.For all variables,I denotedthe
lowest perception value, while 7 denoted the highest perceptions value. The descriptive
included
minimum, maximum, meanand standarddeviation.
analyses
7.4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Personal Values

Table 7.7 shows the descriptive output of the personal values scale including minimum,
deviation.
and
standard
mean
maximum,
-197-
J Nam, 2008
Table 7.7: Descriptive Analysis: Personal Values Scale

Minimum
Variable
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Competence values
1.00
7.00
5.42
1.03
Conformity values
1.00
7.00
5.24
0.96
Compassion values
1.00
7.00
5.55
1.08
Self-oriented values
1.00
7.00
5.57
1.00
Hedonism values
1.00
7.00
5.49
1.17
Assessment of all variables used a 7-point Likert-type scale. The range between minimum
dimensions.
deviations
for
The
is
7.00
1.00
to
all
personal
values
standard
and maximum
for all five dimensions show similar variance, around 1.00, from the responses. Figurc 7.10
in
dimensions
the
the
ascending order.
values
scores
of
personal
mean
presents
Figure 7.10: Means of Personal Values Scale in Ascending Order
7
6
5
4
3
Conformity Values
Competence Values
Hedonism Values
Compassion Values
As seen Figure 7.10, with respect to the personal values scale, the means of these
dimensions suggests that the respondents rated personal values to be moderately high. All
dimensions
for
5.
The
the "selfare
personal
values
above
of
mean
score
scores
mean
oriented values" is highest among the personal values dimensions with a mean score of 5.57.
Conversely, "conformity values" has the lowest mean score of 5.24.
198-
Chgpler 7. Findings of the Research
JNam, 2008
7.4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Brand Equity

Table 7.8 presents the descriptive output of the brand equity scale including minimum,
maximum, mean and standard deviation.
Table 7.8: Descriptive Analysis: Brand E.quity Scale

Minimum
Variable
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
PerceivedQuality: PhysicalQuality
2.00
7.00
4.81
1.02
PerceivedQuality: Staff Behaviour
2.00
7.00
4.77
1.03
Brand Identification
1.00
7.00
2.68
1.51
Lifestyle
1.00
7.00
3.33
1.48
Self-Concept
1.00
7.00
3.44
1.30
As seen in Table 7.8, the range between minimum and maximum is 2.00 to 7.00 for
"perceived quality: physical quality" and "perceived quality: staff behaviour" dimensions
and 1.00 to 7.00 for the "brand identification, " "lifestyle"
and "self-concept" dimensions.
Standard deviations for "perceived quality: physical quality" (1.02) and "perceived quality:
little
(1.03)
Figure
behaviour"
7.11 presents the mean scores
show
relatively
variance.
staff
dimensions
in
brand
ascending order.
equity
of
Figure 7.11: Means of Brand Equity Scale in Ascending Order

7
6
5
4
3
Lifestyle
Selt-(.oiicept
Petceived Quality:
Staff Behaviour
Perceived Quality:
Physical Quality
As shown in Figure 7.11, the mean scores for "perceived quality: staff behaviour" and
199-
Chapter 7. Findinjzs of the Research
JNam, 2008
"perceived
quality:
physical
identification, " "lifestyle"
quality"
dimensions are generally
higher than "brand
and "self-concept" dimensions. Among five dimensions, the
"perceived quality: physical quality" dimension has the highest mean score of 4.81, while
"brand identification"
dimension has the lowest mean score of 2.68. All variables were
assessedusing a 7-point Likert-type scale.
7.4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Other Variables

Table 7.9 shows the descriptive output of other variables such as "overall brand equity,"
"customer satisfaction, " "value for money" and "brand loyalty. "
Table 7.9: Descriptive Analysis: Other Variables

Variable
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Overall Brand Equity
1.00
7.00
4.07
1.27
Customer Satisfaction
1.00
7.00
4.14
1.49
Value for Money
1.00
7.00
4.56
1.26
Brand Loyalty
1.00
7.00
4.03
1.22
As presented in Table 7.9, the range between minimum and maximum is 1.00 to 7.00 For the
"overall brand equity," "customer satisfaction," "value for money" and "brand loyalty"
for
deviations
"customer
The
standard
satisfaction"
scales.
(1.49) shows a relatively
significant variance compared to "overall brand equity" (1.27), "value for money" (1.26)
and "brand loyalty"
(1.22). Figure 7.12 shows the rnean scores of other variables in
ascendingorder.
-200-
Chgj2ter 7. Findings of the Research
JNam, 2008
Figure 7.12: Means of Other Variables in Ascending Order
7
6
5
4
3
Brand Loyalty
Overall Brand Loyalty
Customer Satisfaction
Value for Money
As Figure 7.12 shows, the mean score of brand loyalty is 4.03, overall brand equity is 4.07,
for
is
4.56.
for
is
Value
4.14,
money
and
value
money has the highest
The
loyalty
has
lowest.
for
brand
the
means
of
value
money (4.56)
while
mean score,
indicates that, on average, respondents were satisfied with value for money. Assessment of
Likert-type
7-point
scale.
a
used
all variables
7.5 T-Test and ANOVA Test

T-test and ANOVA test compare more than two different groups and conditions (Brace et al.,
2006). In this research, a T-test identifies differences between two groups in terms of
identifies
differences
ANOVA
test
type
an
and
gender,
and
among six age groups.
customer
7.5.1 Differences between Customer Types
An independentsampleT-test with a confidence level of 95% was executedto find whether

differ
between hotel customers and restaurant
the
significantly
research
or not variables of
customers. Table 7.10 shows the result of the T-test according to customer type.
-201 -
Chgj2ter7. Findings of the Resfarch
JNam. 2008
Table 7.10: Result of T-TestAccording to CustomerType

Variable
CompetenceValues
Conformity Values
CompassionValues
Self-orientedValues
HedonismValues
PhysicalQuality
Staff Behaviour
Lifestyle
Self-concept
CustomerSatisfaction
Value for Money
Brand Loyalty
Mean
Std.D
Hotel Customers
199
5.55
0.96
RestaurantCustomers
179
5.27
1.10
Hotel Customers
199
5.31
0.96
RestaurantCustomers
179
5.16
0.96
Hotel Customers
199
5.58
1.04
RestaurantCustomers
179
5.51
1.12
Hotel Customers
199
5.68
0.93
RestaurantCustomers
179
5.44
1.05
Hotel Customers
199
5.53
1.18
RestaurantCustomers
179
5.45
1.16
Hotel Customers
199
4.68
1.05
Customer Tpe
RestaurantCustomers
179
4.93
0.98
Hotel Customers
199
4.80
0.99
RestaurantCustomers
179
4.74
1.07
Hotel Customers
199
2.72
1.58
RestaurantCustomers
179
2.63
1.42
Hotel Customers
199
3.39
1.51
RestaurantCustomers
179
3.26
1.44
Hotel Customers
199
3.51
1.33
RestaurantCustomers
179
3.35
1.27
Hotel Customers
199
3.98
1.33
RestaurantCustomers
179
4.16
1.19
Hotel Customers
155
4.13
1.44
RestaurantCustomers
158
4.16
1.53
Hotel Customers
155
4.61
1.16
Restaurant Customers
158
4.50
1.36
Hotel Customers
199
3.97
1.26
RestaurantCustomers
179
4.10
1.17
Sig.
2.57
0.08
1.53
0.72
0.65
0.50
2.37
0.09
0.64
0.85
-2.38
0.78
0.63
0.15
0.58
0.07
0.83
0.34
1.20
0.74
-1.31
0.39
-0.19
0.31
0.74
0.02
-1.05
0.70
As shown in Table 7.10, only the "value for money" variable shows statistically significant
differencesbetweenhotel customersand restaurantcustomersat the 5% significance level.
This result indicates that respondentsfrom the hotel survey (4.61) are more satisfied with
from
for
the restaurantsurvey (4.50).
those
than
value
money
-202-
JNam, 2008
7.5.2 Differences between Genders

Another independentsample T-test investigatedwhether or not variables of the research
7.11
T-test
females
Table
differ
between
the
shows
result
of
and males.
significantly
according to gender.
Table 7.11: Result of T-TestAccording to Gender
Variable
CompetenceValues
Conformity Values
CompassionValues
Self-orientedValues
HedonismValues
Physical Quality
Staff Behaviour
Lifestyle
Self-concept
Value for Money
Brand Loyalty
Gender
Female
Mean
Std.D
181
5.38
1.00
Male
197
5.45
1.06
Female
181
5.24
0.99
Male
197
5.24
0.95
Female
181
5.66
1.08
Male
197
5.44
1.06
Female
181
5.70
0.95
Male
197
5.45
1.03
Female
181
5.47
1.23
Male
197
5.51
1.12
Female
181
4.77
1.06
Male
197
4.82
0.99
Female
181
4.70
1.02
Male
197
4.84
1.03
Female
181
2.60
1.48
Male
197
2.75
1.53
Female
181
3.31
1.41
Male
197
3.34
1.54
Female
181
3.55
1.31
Male
197
3.34
1.29
Female
181
4.09
1.22
Male
197
4.04
1.31
Female
153
4.21
1.47
Male
160
4.09
1.50
Female
153
4.58
1.24
Male
160
4.53
1.29
Female
181
4.02
1.25
197
Male
-203-
4.04
1.19
Sig.
-0.64
0.47
0.00
0.94
1.97
0.80
2.36
0.36
-0.35
0.26
-0.51
0.30
-1.26
0.83
-0.94
0.58
-0.18
0.36
I. S4
0.99
0.41
0.33
0.73
0.78
0.31
0.47
-0.11
0.38
Chgj2ter7. Findino ofthe Research
JNam, 2008
Table 7.11 shows the result of the T-test in order to identify any differences between
females and males. According to the result of the T-test, all variables of the researchare
over the 5% significance level, which meansthat no significant difference exists between
femalesand males for all researchvariables.
7.5.3 Differences among Age Groups

An ANOVA test, with a 95% significance level, investigated whether or not significant
differences exist among different age groups with regard to the variables of this research.
Table 7.12 showsthe result of the ANOVA test accordingto age group.
-204-
bb
Itt
00
4=
R
'T
R
Co
CD
CD
14
%0
tn
-i
en kn 1.01" m eq 00 tn r4 -4 %aGo en tn N 00 CN- r 00 en t, kn Fr) CD00 IT ON- 00 en tn It 0Nm

el el cp,
"t
"t 1q qt el -I C'i tq en Cq -4 -4 tn " ONN I", kn W eq en - eq en en C14 C,
00tn o
CA
0
cc
4.)
14 o It en t- 00 "
rkq"44qfqe4
CDr4 00 "0 eq o 00 "
wl N W) eq qt 01,0 kn 00 00 00 00 N kn 10 00 cys-a
0 00 tn fq
0 00 W)eq N0 00 te) f4
ON00 tn en rq ON01,00tn MN
ON0%cc In m eq C%
0 ce in f4 N
ChCNgo in en
It
le
It
INT I",
.c
C)
: 5;
cl
lt
qu
10
0.0
It
10
--t
q
ON eq
ej ci
oo--o
f4 en It In
-0
M
tn
o
't
A,
94
liL.
00
t-
(DO-000
00
C) 00 wl
'D cy, n[- r4l C-i q
Coo
C-j CR
lt3
Cd
>
00
en 't
(h * =
tn
c., M-0-
9= eq M t vt 10
0 Cri " ej "t qq -I ac " qqq

CC
00"Ov. N."" -""OCD"C)O-
00 W') NN
0 00tn eqtq; CD00knr4 eq

;
ONON00knen Ch0A00tn ff)
a-,CN004nm eq ONON004n")
c, a, oow)en
>%
3
4G a
W)kl)m r- Itt eqocs N eq wl tn & 00eqen
r- ChPP)
09 09I-q"ROIlptl W)09 C
tcc
all
n
eq
O
-:
V te; tri t1i toi 4i .4 kA tn 't 4 -'r 't 44
v 't -W 't 4 -,t
qt V w; w; W; wi W; tt wi V
00tn N N;;
ON00tn M
L.
>
't
.t0
"
>
0
>
0
'",
't
rA
E
u
1.0.
r.
0
a
94
' "
g
V
IT W)
W)
It
%?
Nm
tn
1%0
rA
cl
"t
E
0
u
0
-0
tn
W)
2
in
N en IT W)
IWI
trl kn
V)
:v
.0
6d
>
eq en 11 tn
.4
W.,
kIn
10
10
W)
o
W)
o
0
NN
00
tn
CF,(7,00 W)en (q
>
0
19"aCe?,T Vli"o N T'T V19*a 1e? t? 9

1TT 11
g
g
6
kn
W)
tn
W.
b
%L
tn in
tnm
knINt
tn tn
%n
tn
ul
tn
)
tn
en wl
It W)
eq
W)
-N en -t W) -N en "T W) -N
4n
10
It W'l
kn
o
tn
r'. .t 0" "-ID M

t
0 W) %0 M w') W) 00 r- W) t
%.
eq -
%btn kn tn tn g
OR
oc
-0
0
4.
V3
0
u
Cl
0,
0
S.
a, R-t
.0
-NM
%D
1.
r, a,
09 N
in
en
4-,
V)
Vi
CD
tn
cj
43
>
A4
tn
o
tn
Ci
0
W), o 00 00 W-1 o
ci 01 q ci cj (;
"'t
L.
u
0
>
4
g
%ntn V*i tn
n W) tn te)
en 't tn
r W)
- eq en lq:
CIL
cl
C) en en ON'"* 0 00 o I (D "el
W) W'seq N It o eq eq Q eq --t
:OU kt tr; toi W; W; tr; tr; tr; wi tr; w;
C) 00 kn eq eq
kn *
4)
>
It
-t
tA
rA
2,
1
wv
It
r-
11
c) V-1 "t
c Q ej
It
0
u
;. b
to')
I",
cq en 'IT W)
4)
t5D
iz
qt
V.
)
e,4ff) Ir tn
-4
kn
tn
%,
a
a
cc
-t
t?
tn,*
4
tnw
-T
He? A
N
A -0
-0
b 2a 4%
%-0
r- r V?
r- e4
?
g
tn W) V-)
th
r.
>
14T q1t
en 10 CDt o -M 10 0 r- .o 0 00 W'jNN
1 00 V. IT rq
r, 00 t- It C*4 ONON00 V) en N
40
;0-
tn
q1t
C-oo'%D-qw)r4 cNC7,eO)c!Crj
L.
L.
4.)
40
; P't
NooenqNq
=cNroo(-e4
tel or) tn eq N t- eq W)
41
CA
Chapter 7. Findings ofthe Research
JNwn. 2008
As Table 7.12 shows, significant differencesappearamongdifferent age groupswith regard

brand
0.00,
identification
..
"
"brand
"hedonism
equity"
with
of
p-values
overall
to
values,
...
highest
F-ratio
"hedonism
The
the
0.04.
"lifestyle"
shows
values"
with a p-value of
and
(6.57), which indicates the widest gap among different age groups with regard to this
be
felt
hedonism
"25-34"
the
to
Among
the
values
the
group
age
six age groups,
variable.
felt
hedonism
"45-54"
the
5.83,
important
the
age
group
while
with a mean score of
most
identification"
The
"brand
4.95.
important
be
least
score
values to
indicates
(3.38),
the
highest
F-ratio
second widest gap among
the
which
second
shows
different age groups with regard to this variable. The "65 and over" age group has the
has
3.28,
"55-64"
the
identification
brand
while
age
group
of
with a mean score
strongest
low
2.27.
However,
the
identification
brand
considering
the weakest
low
brand
have
in
to
3.5)
(under
seem
six age groups, respondents
mean scores
identif ication.
The "overall brandequity" also showsa high F-ratio (3.15),which indicatesa significant
differenceamongthe six agegroupswith regardto overall brandidentification.The "35brand
(4.49)
44" agegrouphaverelativelyhigherperceptions
equity
comparedto
of overall
has
lowest
hand,
"55-64"
On
the
the
the
group
age
perceptionof
other
other agegroups.
3.75.
brand
of
score
a
mean
equitywith
overall
In the caseof "lifestyle, " the F-ratio is 2.33, which indicatesa significant difference among
has
highest
lifestyle.
The
"35-44"
the
to
age
group
perception
the six age groupswith regard
by
followed
"65
3.72,
the
lifestyle
and oveeage group with a mean
with a meanscoreof
of
3.31,
"25-34"
the
"16-24"
3.42,
score
of
age group with
the
a
mean
with
group
age
scoreof
3.11,
"45-54"
the
3.30,
"55-64"
age
the
and
with
a
mean
score
of
group
age
a meanscoreof
4.0)
for
low
(under
However,
2.88.
six age
with
mean
scores
group with a mean score of
lifestyle.
low
have
to
perception
of
a
seem
groups,respondents
7.6 Correlation Analysis

The previous analysesconfirm that five dimensionsof personalvalues and brand equity are
-206-
JNam. 2008
valid and reliable. Before proceedingto further advancedanalyses,a correlation analysisof

researchvariables is vital for obtaining an initial senseof the type of correlationsamongthe
researchvariables.
7.6.1 Correlation Matrix among Variables

For further examination of the relationshipsamongresearchvariables, correlation analysis
was performed. The dimensionsof both personalvaluesand brand equity and four variables
such as overall brand equity, customersatisfaction,value for money and brand loyalty were
subjectsof the analysis.Table 7.13 showsthe correlation matrix of the relationshipsamong
researchvariables.
-207-
Ili
Q
9.1
'4
10
Ci
<0
r'
C>
en
T-4
CN
IIR
Ci
W-1 wl
Cli
W)
r-
C>
Q
en
en
00
Itt
it
I:
C)
en
0
Vi
0
Vi
0
tn
ul
"R
00
(ON
Nq
`q
Ch
Iq
it
IC!
en
C.0
L.
0
0
U
0
U
C)
C4
C14
00
00
C;
cl
00
00
eq
cl
C;
cs
C)
cl
L
Ci
C>
Ci
Q
C;
C;
40
ci
U
40
ON
en
Cli
two
r-
C4
C)
IT
C)
Ci
W)
"R
Cs
-i
00
.0
1-t
00
ri
C>
tn
ch
Z,
R 'm =
E
6
94
"1
Ow
.4.0
w
ci
C43
An
;,.
PC
0-0
93
41
16.
fA
>1
40
0
0
It.
PO
C;
Chapter 7. Findings of the Research
JNam. 2008
As shown in Table 7.13, relatively high correlations appear for the personal values
dimensions ranging from 0.44 to 0.69. However, personal values dimensions have
between
Correlations
low
the personal
the
other variables.
correlation with all
relatively
from
0.20
0.29,
between
dimension
to
dimensions
"physical
range
quality"
and
values
the personalvalues dimensionsand "staff behavioue'dimensionrange from 0.19 to 0.28,
between the personal values dimensions and "brand identification" dimension range
from 0.12 to 0.18, betweenpersonalvalues dimensionsand "lifestyle" dimension range
from 0.18 to 0.24, between personal values dimensionsand "self-concept" dimension
brand
dimensions
"overall
between
from
0.22,
0.19
and
equity"
to
personalvalues
range
dimensions
"customer
between
from
0.22,
0.16
to
values
and
personal
variable range
between
dimensions
from
0.21,
0.17
to
values
personal
and
variable
range
satisfaction"
"value for money" variable range from 0.11 to 0.21, and between personal values
dimensions and "brand loyalty" variable range from 0.19 to 0.22. These relationships
later.
further
and
examination
explanation
undergo
Correlations among the brand equity dimensionsalso are relatively high, ranging from
0.33 to 0.66. However, the "brand identification" dimension seems only moderately
behaviour"
"staff
dimensions.
(0.33)
(0.34)
"physical
the
to
and
quality"
related
Furthermore,all five dimensionsof brand equity have a strong relationship with "overall
brand equity," "customer satisfaction" and "brand loyalty" variables from 0.42 to 0.63.
These relationships support the concurrent and predictive validity of the brand equity
for
"physical
"value
However,
to
the
money"
variable
moderately
relates
quality"
scale.
(0.37), "staff behaviour" (0.39), "brand identification" (0.20), "lifestyle" (0.27) and
(0.31). These relationships,especially,the influence of the brand equity
66self-concept"
dimensionon brand loyalty, have explanationand examinationlater.
Finally, the "overall brand equity" variable shows a strong correlation with "customer
loyalty"
(0.71).
The
"customer
(0.55)
"brand
satisfaction" variable also
and
satisfaction"
loyalty
(0.76).
However,
brand
for
"value
money" variable
correlates
with
strongly
brand
"overall
equity" (0.34), "customer satisfaction"
with
showsmoderaterelationships
(0.49) and "brand loyalty" (0.44) variables. These relationships also will be further
later.
and
examined
explained
-209-
F
ChqRter 7. Findings of the Research
.
JNam, 2008
7.7 Research Hypotheses and Model Testing

In the final stageof analysis for this research,regressionanalysis,especially,Baron and
Kenny's (1986) methodsto examine the mediating effect and moderating effects, tested
dimensions
hypotheses
Five
(competencevalues,
the
and
model.
values
research
personal
hedonism
and
compassion
values,
self-oriented
values
conformity values,
values) are the
independentvariables; five brand equity dimensions(physical quality, staff behaviour,
brand identification, lifestyle and self-concept)are mediating variables; brand loyalty is
a dependent variable. In addition, respondents'"value for money" is a moderating
variable.

The previous analysis confirmed five dimensions of personal values (PV), namely:
"competencevalues," "conformity values," "compassionvalues," "self-oriented values,"
and "hedonism values" and five dimensionsof brand equity namely; "physical quality,"
6'staffbehaviour," "brand identification," "lifestyle" and "self-concept." One of the aims
is
to examine the effects of personal values on brand equity (BE). To
this
research
of
achievethis goal, the following hypothesesare generated:
Hl: "Competencevalues" of PV have a positive effect on "physical quality" of BE.
H2: "Conformity values" of PV have a positive effect on "physical quality" of BE.
H3: "Compassionvalues" of PV have a positive effect on "physical quality" of BE.
H4: "Self-oriented values" of PV have a positive effect on "physical quality" of BE.
H5: "Hedonism values" of PV have a positive effect on "physical quality" of BE.
H6: "Competencevalues" of PV have a positive effect on "staff behaviour" of BE.
H7: "Conformity values" of PV have a positive effect on "staff behaviour"of BE.
H8: "Compassionvalues" of PV have a positive effect on "staff behaviour" of BE.
H9: "Self-oriented valuee' of PV havea positive effect on "staff behaviour" of BE.
H10: "Hedonism values" of PV have a positive effect on "staff behaviour" of BE.
HII: "Competencevalues" of PV have a positive effect on "brand identification" of BE.
H12: "Conformity values" of PV havea positive effect on "brand identification" of BE.
-210-
JNam. 2008
H13: "Compassionvalues" of PV havea positive effect on "brand identification" of BE.

H14: "Self-oriented values" of PV havea positive effect on "brand identification" of BE.
H15: "Hedonism values" of PV have a positive effect on "brand identification" of BE.
H16: "Competencevalues" of PV have a positive effect on "lifestyle" of BE.
H17: "Conformity values" of PV have a positive effect on "lifestyle" of BE.
H18: "Compassionvalues" of PV have a positive effect on "lifestyle" of BE.
H19: "Self-oriented values" of PV have a positive effect on "Lifestyle" of BE.
H20: "Hedonism values" of PV have a positive effect on "Lifestyle" of BE.
H21: "Competencevalues" of PV havea positive effect on "self-concept" of BE.
H22: "Conformity values" of PV have a positive effect on "self-concepf' of BE.
H23: "Compassionvalues"'of PV havea positive effect on "self-concept" of BE.
H24: "Self-oriented values" of PV have a positive effect on "self-concept" of BE.
H25: "Hedonism values" of PV have a positive effect on "self-concept" of BE.
Testing thesehypothesesrelies on five multiple regressionanalyses.The five dimensions
of the personal values scale, as derived from the previous analysis, are independent
derived
brand
dimensions,
from
the previous analysis,
the
as
and
each
of
equity
variables,
five
Table
dependent
7.14
the
variables.
summarises
multiple regression tests
are
betweenthe personalvaluesdimensionsand the brand equity dimensions.
-211-
10
req
r-
It
ON
rC'i
CN
ON
en
r1l
Ci
N-
0"
C43
r00
W'l
%o
cc
en
C14
C14
6
10
r:
ce
co
m
.2
cl
Q.#
5
0
10
wl
cl
C, 4
lzr
C)
00
r4
cl
(D
q
C)
C;
C4
C*
vl$
C14
r00
rC,4
m
V%
ci
6
f4
V%
en
C14
(>
09
e4
0
cu
1.0
CD
t
CD
kn
CD
ri
ei)
ce
t*-.
m
rr-
V%
o
C>
Cl
9-4
%c
00
r-
1-t
%I0
rq
CD
C,4
't
Gn
cN
V, 3
Q>
.;;
; O-b
CD
f4
CD
le
c;
CD
Ac
C>
.0cl
EM;
Q
3
cl
Q.
0
.
CZ.
r.
CA
t4
1-0
en
Chgpter 7. Findings ofthe Resarch
JNam. 2008
Table 7.14 shows that the regression model is statistically significant (p=0.000) in
R2value
indicates
The
0.10
brand
"physical
that the
the
of
quality"
equity.
of
estimating
in
10%
the
of
variance "physical quality" of brand equity.
regression model explains
"Conformity values" (P--0.14) and "self-oriented values" (P=0.24) dimensions make
statistically significant contributions (p<0.05) in estimatingthe "physical quality" of brand
"competence
dimensions
"
"compassion
However,
three
the
such
as
values,
other
equity.
have
influence
dimensions
"hedonism
significant
no
on "physical
values"
values" and
but
does
H2
H4
HI,
brand
Hence,
this
and
confirms
not
confirm
research
quality" of
equity.
H3 and H5.
The secondregressionmodel assessesthe relationship of the personal values dimensions
is
brand
behavioue,
The
"staff
model
of
equity.
regression
and
(p=0.000) in estimating the "staff behaviour" of brand equity. The R2value suggeststhat
10% of variance in "staff behaviour of brand equity can be explained by the personal
values dimensions. The result indicates that "compassion values" (P=0.16) and "selfdimensions
(p<0.05)
for
"staff
(P=0.20)
explaining
significant
are
values"
oriented
behaviour" of brand equity. However, the "competencevalues," "conformity values" and
"hedonism values" dimensions have no significance for explaining "staff behaviour" of
brand equity. Thus, this researchconfirms H8 and H9 but does not confirm H6, H7 and
H10.
In the examination of the relationship betweenthe personal values dimensionsand "brand
identification" of brand equity, the RI value indicates that the personal values dimensions
identification"
in
"brand
brand
4%
the
the
of
of
variance
equity. This is statistically
explain
level.
"self-oriented
dimension
0.006
However,
(P=0.16)
the
the
only
at
values"
significant
make a significant contribution (p<0.05) to explain "brand identification" of brand equity,
while the other four dimensions provide no significant contribution to explain "brand
identification" of brand equity. Therefore, this researchconfirms only H14 but does not
confirm H11, H12, H13 and H15.
The fourth regression model is statistically significant (p=0.000) in estimating the
-213-
JNam. 2008
Chanter 7. Findinzs ofthe Research
"lifestyle" of brand equity. The R2value of 0.07 indicatesthat the regressionmodel explains
7% of the variance in "lifestyle" of brand equity. However, only the "hedonism values"
dimension makes a significant contribution in explaining "lifestyle" of brand equity
(0=0.15; p<0.05). Thus, the research'sresults only acceptH20, and reject H16, H17, H18
and H19.
The results of the final regressiontest show that personalvalues dimensionsare statistically
brand
0.000
levels.
in
The R2 value
"self-concept"
equity
at
significant
of
estimating
indicates that 7% of variance in the "self-concept" of brand equity can be explained by the
personal values dimensions.The results also reveal that the "conformity values" (P=0.15)
(P=0.14)
dimensions
"self-oriented
make a significant contribution (p<0.05) to
values"
and
explain "self-concept" of brand equity. However,three other dimensionsare not statistically
but
Hence,
H22
H24
do not confirm H21, H23
confirm
and
predictors.
results
significant
and H25.

The previous analysesreveal that five dimensionsof brand equity are valid and reliable (i. e.
"physical quality," "staff behaviour," "brand identification," "lifestyle, " "self-concept").
One of the aims of this researchis to examine the premise that brand equity influences
brand loyalty. The following hypothesesare generatedto achievethis goal:
H26:
H27:
"Physical quality" of brand equity has a positive effect on brand loyalty.

"Staff behaviour"of brand equity has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
"Brand identification" of brand equity has a positive effect on brand loyalty.

H29: " Lifestyle" of brand equity has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
H28:
H30:
"Self-concept" of brand equity has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
Multiple regressionanalysis testedthesehypothesesin which brand loyalty is a dependent

variable, and five dimensions of brand equity: "perceived quality: physical quality,"
"perceived quality: staff behaviour," "brand identification," "lifestyle" and "self-concept"
Choter 7. Findings ofthe Resgarch
JNam. 2008
between
independent
Table
7.15
the
multiple
regression
analysis
summarizes
are
variables.
five dimensionsof brand equity and brand loyalty.
Table 7.15: Summaryof RegressionAnalysis on Brand Loyalty
Brand Loyalty
Variable
Beta
t-value
p-value
Perceived Quality: Physical Quality
0.09
1.98
0.048
Perceived Quality: Staff Behaviour
0.19
4.10
0.000
0.24
5.29
0.000
Lifestyle
0.11
2.27
0.023
Self-concept
0.26
4.93
0.000
2.87
0.004
(Constant)
0.52
R2
F
81.193
0.000
Table 7.15 shows that the regression model is statistically significant (P=0.000) in
loyalty.
brand
The
112value
indicates
0.52
the
that the model
of
respondents'
estimating
P
in
brand
loyalty.
Also,
52%
the
the
coefficients indicate that all five
of
variance
explains
dimensions make significant contributions to explaining brand loyalty with 0.09 for
"perceived quality: physical quality," 0.19 for "perceived quality: staff behaviour," 0.24 for
"brand identification," 0.11 for "lifestyle" and 0.26 for "self-concept." "Self-concept"
(0.26) has the largest P coefficient followed by "brand identification" (0.24), "perceived
"lifestyle"
(0.11)
"perceived
behaviour"
(0.19),
and
quality: physical quality"
quality: staff
(0.09). This means that "self-concept" makes the strongest contribution to explain brand
loyalty. These findings reveal that all five dimensions of brand equity have significant
loyalty.
H26,
H27,
H28,
brand
H25,
H29
H30
Thus,
and
are supported.
on
effects
-215-
JNam. 2008

One of the aims of this researchis to examinethe premise that brand equity mediatesthe
following
hypothesis
is
loyalty.
To
brand
this
the
goal,
achieve
effect of personalvalues on
generated:
H31: Brand equity mediatesthe effect of personalvalueson brand loyalty.
The researchhypothesisspecifiesthat brand equity mediatesthe effects of personalvalues
hypothesis,
formally
brand
loyalty.
In
this researchadopted
test
the
to
mediation
order
on
the Baron and Kenny's (1986) criteria to establishwhether or not conditions for mediation
brand
for
Figure
7.13
the
equity.
mediating model
shows
exist.
Figure 7.13: Mediating Model for Brand Equity
Brand Equity (B)
Personal Values (A)
Brand Loyalty (C)
Source: Adapted from Baron and Kenny (1986, p. 1176)

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), in order to prove mediation, significant
(personal
between
A
dependent
C
predictor
values)
and
variable
must
exist
relationships
(brand loyalty), betweenpredictor A (personalvalues) and mediator B (brand equity), and
betweenmediator B (brand equity) and dependentvariable C (brand loyalty). The previous
(personal
A
that
values) significantly relates to the mediator B
analysesreveal
predictor
(brand equity) (See Table 7.14). Furthermore, the previous test reveals that mediator B
(brand equity) has a statistically significant effect on dependentvariable C (brand loyalty)
-216-
JNwn. 2008
(See Table 7.15). Thus, Baron and Kenny's (1986) secondand third criteria are met. Last,
between
determines
the
of
a
relationship
existence
predictor A
multiple regressionanalysis
(personal values) and dependentvariable C (brand loyalty). Table 7.16 surnmarisesthe
dimensions
brand
loyalty.
between
and
personalvalues
multiple regressionanalysis
Table 7.16: Summaryof RegressionAnalysis: PersonalValuesDimensions and Brand Loyalty
Brand Loyalty
Variable
Beta
t-value
p-value
Competence Values
0.05
0.66
0.509
Conformity Values
0.07
1.04
0.298
Compassion Values
0.04
0.49
0.620
0.09
1.28
0.199
Hedonism Values
0.05
0.68
0.492
5.03
0.000
(Constant)
R2
0.06
5.316
0.000
As can be seenin Table 7.16, in the examinationsof the relationship betweenthe personal
indicates
brand
loyalty,
R2value
dimensions
dimensions
the
that
and
personal
values
values
is
loyalty.
in
brand
This
level.
6%
0.000
the
statistically
significant
of
variance
at
explain
However, none of the dimensions of personal values has a significant influence on brand
loyalty. The tests reveal that predictor A (personal values) does not have a statistically
C
loyalty).
dependent
(brand
Therefore,
Baron and
variable
relationship
with
significant
Kenny's (1986) first criterion is not met. Finally, testing the mediating effect of brand equity
brand
between
loyalty is not possible becausethe
the
values
personal
and
relationship
on
brand
to
equity do not exist. Thus, H31 cannot be proved in
conditions prove mediation of
this research.
-217-
JNam. 2008

One of the aims of this researchis to examinewhether or not value for money moderates
relationships between brand equity and brand loyalty. Tbus, the following hypothesesare
generatedto achievethis goal:
H32: Value for money moderatesthe effect of "physical quality" of BE on brand loyalty.
H33: Value for money moderatesthe effect of "staff behaviour" of BE on brand loyalty.
H34: Value for money moderatesthe effect of "brand identification" of BE on brand loyalty.
H35: Value for money moderatesthe effect of "lifestyle" of BE on brand loyalty.
H36: Value for money moderatesthe effect of "self-concept" of BE on brand loyalty.
Researchhypothesesposit that value for money moderatesthe impact of brand equity on
brand loyalty. A moderator variable B (value for money) specifies when or under what
conditions a predictor variable A (brand equity) influences a dependentvariable C (brand
loyalty) (Baron and Kenny, 1986).A moderatorvariable B (value for money) may reduceor
enhancethe direction of the relationshipbetweena predictor variable A (brand equity) and a
dependentvariable C (brand loyalty), or it may even changethe direction of the relationship
betweentwo variables from positive to negativeor vice versa (Kim et al., 2001b). In other
words, a strong value for money leveragesthe effect of brand equity on brand loyalty.
Figure 7.14 showsthe moderatingmodel of value for money.
Figure 7.14: Moderating Model of Value for Money
Brand Equity (A)
Value for Money (B)
Brand Loyalty (C)
Brand Equity X Value for Money

(A x B)
Source: Adapted from Baron and Kenny (1986, p. 1174)
-218-
Chgj2ter7. Findings of the Research
JNam, 2008
As shown in Figure 7.14, to test the moderatingeffect, a moderatorterm is designatedas an

independentvariable. The moderator term is a compoundvariable formed by multiplying
independent variables by the moderator variable (Brand equity x value for money). For
independent
between
(X)
if
(Z)
the
an
variable
anda
moderates
relationship
a
variable
example,
dependentvariable(Y), the interactioncan be expressedas XZ. In the regressionequation,the
moderatedrelationshipof Z is expressedas:
bo+ biX +
where
b2Z
BrandLoyalty;
BrandEquity;
b3XZ,
Z =Value for Money;

XZ = BrandEquity x Value for Money;
b o=constantvalue(intercept);
b iX = lineareffectof X (independentvariable);
b2Z= lineareffectof Z (moderatorvariable),and
b 3XZ= moderatoreffect of Z on X.
To determinewhether the moderatoreffect is significant, three regressionequationsmust be
is
(Y
bo
biX).
First,
Second,
+
the
the moderator
estimated
original
equation
=
examined.
independent
is
is
formed
(Z)
that
variable
addedto the original equation(Y =
as
an
variable
bo+ biX + b2Z)and is estimated.Last, the moderatedrelationship is estimated(Y = bo+ biX
+ b2Z+ b3XZ). For example, brand loyalty is regressedon brand equity in the first step,on
both brand equity and value for money in the secondstep, and on brand equity, value for
by
brand
for
in
the
the final step. If the
equity
value
multiplicative
money
and
money,
biX
bo
in
(Y
between
R2
+
+ b2Z) and the third step (Y = bo+ bIX
the
secondstep =
change
+ b2Z + b3XZ) is statistically significant (p<0.05), then a significant moderating effect is
2003).
1998;
Lam,
(Hair
et
al.,
present
This research evaluates the moderating effect using hierarchical moderator regression
analysis, as suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1983). As is often the case in testing
interaction
the
terms, preliminary analysis revealsseveral
through
of
use
moderatingeffects
high inter-correlations and multicollinearity effects between variables. Thus, in order to
-219-
JNam. 2008
in
hierarchical
issue,
independent
the
the
this
variables
continuous
moderator
address
linearity
(Ekinci
to
multicol
reduce
were
mean
centered
and Hosany,
regression models
2006). Thesetransformationsyielded interactionten-nswith low-correlations. Furthermore,
had
inflation
interaction
factor
(VIF)
term
the
a
variance
of
models,
no
across
regression
exceedingthe recommendedmaximum of 10 (Hair et al., 1998).This indicatesno evidence
of multicollinearity. To simplify the presentationof the results, the five brand equity
dimensions are summated.The five brand equity dimensions are independentvariables;
loyalty
is
brand
dependent
The
for
is
the
the
variable,
and
variable.
money
moderating
value
in
Table
7.17.
the
regression
analysis
appear
results of
Table 7.17: Moderating Effects of Value for Money on the Relationship between Brand
Equity and Brand Loyalty.
DependentVariable: Brand Loyalty
independent Variables
Step I
Step 2
Step3
Beta
t-value
Beta
t-value
Beta
t-value
Brand Equity: PhysicalQuality
0.09
1.98*
0.04
0.83
0.06
1.15
Brand Equity: Staff Behaviour
0.19
4.10***
0.15
3.08**
0.16
3.37**
Brand Equity: Brand Identification
0.24
5.29***
0.23
4.88***
0.18
3.65***
Brand Equity: Lifestyle
0.11
2.27*
0.13
2.43*
0.15
2.77**
Brand Equity: Self-concept
0.26
4.93***
0.23
4.02***
0.19
3.37**
0.20
4.83***
0.19
4.61***
PhysicalQuality x Value for Money
-0.03
-0.58
Staff Behaviour x Value for Money

Brand Identification x Value for Money
-0.00
0.15
-0.12
3.15**
Lifestyle x Value for Money
-0.04
-0.87
Self-conceptx Value for Money
0.07
1.41
Value for Money
92.27***
(Constant)
87.12***
80.40***
Model F
81-193***
63.01
37.59
R2
0.52
0.54
0.57
0.02
0.03
AR2
Note: *Significant at the p< 0.05, **Significant at the p< 0.01, ***Significant at the p< 0.001
-220-
JNam. 2008
As shown in Table 7.17, the overall model-fit indices are statistically significant for both
Step 2 and Step 3. The five brand equity dimensionsand value for money explain 54% of
total variance in estimating brand loyalty in Step 2. Furthermore, staff behaviour
(beta--0.15; p<0.01), brand identification (beta--0.23; p<0.001), lifestyle (beta=0.13;
for
have
(beta=0.20;
(beta=0.23;
value
money
p<0.001)
p<0.001) and
p<0.05), self-concept
in
brand
loyalty
Step
2.
As
mentioned earlier, the significance of
on
significant
effect
a
R2
indicated
by
Step
2
be
values
of
and Step 3. If the
comparing
moderating effects can
be
is
in
R2
the
the
variable
can
moderating
considered
of
effect
significant,
change
3
is
2
Step
(A
in
between
Step
R2=0.03;
difference
R2
The
and
significant
significant.
for
This
the
value
moderating effect of
money on the relationship
supports
p=0.000).
between brand equity and brand loyalty. However, value for money only has a significant
dimension
brand
between
identification"
"brand
the
of
equity and
relationship
effect on
brand loyalty. Therefore, the results only confirm H34 while H32, H33, H35 and H36
in
this research.
unconfirmed
remain
7.8 Summary
This chapter presents the findings of research. First, the profiles of respondentsare
illustrated, and second is assessmentof the validity and reliability of the scales.Findings
dimensions
"competence
five
the
scale:
personal
values
of
values," "conformity
confirm
"
"self-oriented
"
five
"hedonism
"
"compassion
values,
values,
and
values"
and
values,
dimensions of brand equity, namely: "physical quality," "staff behaviour," "brand
identification," "lifestyle" and "self-concept." The results support the notion that the
items
dimensions
27
five
five
brand
the
and
and
equity
scale
with
personalvaluesscalewith
dimensionsand 27 items are valid and reliable. In addition, Cronbach's alpha coefficient
loyalty
brand
items.
descriptive
4
Third,
the
the
scale
of
with
reliability
analyses,
supports
include
in
this
research,
minimum, maximum, meanand standard
performedon all variables
deviation. Fourth, the T-test identifies differencesbetweentwo groups in terms of customer
type and gender,and the ANOVA test identifies differencesamong six age groups. Fifth, a
initial
identification
an
analysis
provides
of the type of correlations among the
correlation
-221-
JNam. 2008
Choter 7. Findings ofthe Research
researchvariables. Finally, regressionanalysistests researchhypothesesand the research

model. Table 7.18 summarizesthe hypothesestestingresultsof the research.
-222-
JNam. 2008
ChgRter 7. Findings ofthe Research

.
Table 7.18: HypothesesTestingResultsof the Research

Beta
p-value
Hypothesis
Supported
Hl: "CompetenceValues"of PV - "PhysicalQuality" of BE

H2: "Conformity Values"of PV - "PhysicalQuality" of BE
-0.09
0.14
0.253
No
0.029
Yes
H3: "CompassionValues"of PV - "PhysicalQuality" of BE

H41:"Self-oriented Values"of PV - "PhysicalQuality" of BE
H5: "Hedonism Values"of PV - "PhysicalQuality" of BE
0.06
0.417
No
0.24
0.001
Yes
-0.00
0.992
No
H6: "CompetenceValuee'of PV - "Staff Behaviour"of BE

H7: "Conformity Values"of PV - "Staff Behaviour"of BE
-0.02
0.11
0.773
No
0.095
No
Hs: "CompassionValues"of PV - "Staff Behaviour"of BE

Hq: "Self-oriented Values"of PV - "Staff Behaviour"of BE
Hi 0: "HedonismValues"of PV - "Staff Behaviour"of BE
0.16
0.041
Yes
0.20
0.006
Yes
-0.08
0.261
No
-0.02
0.10
0.782
No
0.125
No
-0.07
0.16
0.391
No
0.027
Yes
H15: "HedonismValues"of PV - "Brand Identification"of BE

* 16: "CompetenceValues"of PV - "Lifestyle" of BE
0.05
0.487
No
0.02
0.787
No
* 17: "Conformity Values"of PV - "Lifestyle" of BE

H18: "CompassionValuee'of PV - "Lifestyle" of BE
H 19: "Self-orientedValuee'of PV - "Lifestyle" of BE
H20: "HedonismValues"of PV - "Lifestyle" of BE
H2 1: "CompetenceValuee'of PV - "Self-concept"of BE
0.07
0.251
No
-0.05
0.11
0.486
No
0.123
No
0.15
0.046
Yes
-0.00
0.15
0.917
No
0.026
Yes
-0.00
0.14
0.927
No
0..047
Yes
0.03
0.654
No
0.09
0.048
Yes
0.19
0.000
Yes
0.24
0.000
Yes
0.11
0.023
Yes
0.26
0.000
Yes
-0.03
0.557
x
No
-0.00
0.15
0.902
No
0.002
Yes
0.385
No
0.157
No
Hypotheses
H 11: "CompetenceValues!' of PV H 12: "Conformity Values"of PV 1113: "CompassionValues"of PV H 14: "Self-orientedValues"of PV -
"Brand Identification"of BE
H22: "Conformity Values"of PV - "Self-concept"of BE

H23: "CompassionValues"of PV - "Self-concept"of BE
H24: "Self-orientedValues"of PV- "Self-concept"of BE
U25: "HedonismValues"of PV - "Self-concept"of BE
1126:"PhysicalQuality" of BE - Bl,
H27: "Staff Behaviour of BE - BL
H28: "Brand IdentiflcatioW'of BE - 131,
H29: "Lifestyle" of BE - 131,
H30: "Self-concept"of BE - BL
H31: PV - BE - BL (MediatingEffect of BE)
H32: VM - "Physicalquality" of BE: BL (ModeratingEffect of VM)

H33: VM- "Staff Behaviour of BE: BL (ModeratingEffect of VM)
H34: VM - "Brand Identification"of BE: BL (ModeratingEffect of VM)
H35: VM - "Lifestyle" of BE: Bl, (ModeratingEffect of VM)
-0.04
0.07
H36: VM - "Self-concept"of BE: BL (ModeratingEffect of VM)

* PV. PersonalValues, BE: Brand Equity, BL: Brand Loyalty, VM: Value for Money
-223-
CHAPTER 8
JNam, 2008
Chapter 8. Discussionand Conclusion
CHAPTER EIGHT
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
8.1 Introduction
This chapterpresentsthe discussionand conclusion of six topics. The first topic delineates
the objectives of the research as stated in Chapter 1. The second section reviews the
findings.
discussion
The
third
section
presents
and conclusion drawn from research
research
findings. The fourth section of this chapter deals with contributions of the research
including theoretical contributions, and practical and managerial implications. The fifth
topic concernslimitations of the researchand suggestionsfor future research.
8.2 Objectives of the Research

Although the issue of brand equity has emergedas one of the most important aspectsof
branding, relatively limited empirical research exists regarding this issue as relating to
servicebrands,especially hospitality brands.This lack of literature arises from the fact that
most researchershave concentratedon product brandsrather than service brands.Moreover,
-225-
Chgj2ter8. Discussionand Conclusion
JNam, 2008
becausemost researchersfocused primarily on defining and measuring brand equity, little

its
brand
is
forthcoming
the
creation
of
or
equity
studies
which
empirical research
is
to
Accordingly,
this
the
main
objective
of
research
and
consequences.
antecedents
investigate these latter two aspectsfor the hospitality industry. Based on the above general
background,the specific objectivesof the researchare:
i)
To identify the underlying dimensionsof personalvalues and brand equity.

To investigatethe mediating effects of brand equity on the relationship between
loyalty.
brand
and
personalvalues
iii)
To examine whether or not value for money moderatesthe relationship between

brand equity and brand loyalty.
The following section reviews and discussesthe findings of the researchwith regard to
theseobjectives.
8.3 Review of the Research Findings

From the research,severalsignificant findings haveemerged,primarily:
(1) The personal values scale with five dimensions was valid and reliable. The present
dimensions
"
five
"competence
of
personal
values
namely:
values,
confirmed
research
"conformity values," "compassionvalues," "self-oriented values" and "hedonism values."
(2) This researchconfirmedasvalid andreliablefive dimensionsof brandequity:"physical

identification,
"self-concept"
"
"lifestyle"
behaviour,
"
"brand
"staff
"
all of
and
quality,
brand
dimensions
be
important
to
of
equity.
appear
which
(3) A complex set of positive relationships appeared between the confirmed dimensions of
dimensions
the
of brand equity. The "conformity
confirmed
personal values and
values"
dimension of personal values had a positive effect on the "physical quality" and "selfbrand
"compassion
dimensions
equity;
of
values" on "staff behaviour"; "selfconcept"
-226-
Chgpter 8. Discussionand Conclusion
JNam. 2008
oriented values" on "physical quality, " "staff behaviour," "brand identification"
and "self-
concept"; "hedonism values" on "lifestyle. "

(4) All five dimensions of brand equity ("physical quality," "staff behaviour," "brand
identification," "lifestyle" and "self-concept") were found to have positive effects on brand
loyalty. Among the brand equity dimensions,the "self-concept" dimension appearsto be the
having
its
important
dimension
brand
from
the strongest effect on brand
of
equity
most
loyalty, "brand identification," "staff behaviour," "lifestyle" and "physical quality" in that
importance.
order of
(5) This researchadoptedBaron and Kenny's (1986) criteria to establishwhether or not the
conditions for mediation of brand equity exist. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), in
brand
to
prove
mediation
of
equity, significant relationships must exist between
order
personal values and brand loyalty, betweenpersonalvalues and brand equity, and between
brand equity and brand loyalty. As mentionedearlier,a complex set of positive relationships
dimensions
between
the
of personal values and the confirmed
confin-ned
appeared
dimensions of brand equity. While all five dimensions of brand equity had significant
effects on brand loyalty, none of the dimensionsof personal values indicated a significant
loyalty.
brand
brand
Testing
the
effect
mediating
of
on
equity on brand loyalty was
effect
not possiblebecausethe conditions to prove mediation of brand equity do not exist.
(6) This researchadopted Baron and Kenny's (1986) method using moderatedregression
for
the
to
effect
of
value
examine
moderating
money (good vs. bad) which appears
analysis
to have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between brand equity and brand
loyalty (A R2= 0.03; p= 0.000). However, amongthe five dimensionsof brand equity, value
for money had a significant moderating effect only on the relationship betweenthe "brand
identification" dimension of brand equity and brand loyalty.
8.4 Discussion of the Research Findings

Through the research,severalsignificant results were achieved.Some of the findings are in
-227-
JNam, 2008
insights.
The
following
discusses
section
research
and
some
are
new
accordancewith past
the researchfindings in detail. Figure 8.1 showsthe summaryof final researchmodel.
-228-
4.0
cr,I
CC6
1-1
an.
tf4
f4
00
f4
Ch
fe)
PC
I
tn
Cis
cl
0
4)
CIO
10,
co
E
>
gi
9:64
.2
u
44
C
'A
9 =
0
u
PO
aC
0
f
10
Chgj2ter 8. Discussion and Conclusion
JNam. 2008
As shown in Figure 8.1, in the examinationsof the relationship between.personalvaluesand

brand equity, the "conformity values" dimension of personal values have significant
influence on the "physical quality" (P=0.14) and "self-concept" (P=0.15) dimensions of
brand equity; "compassion values" dimension of personal values on "staff behavioue,
(P=O.16) of brand equity; "self-oriented values" dimensionof personal values on "physical
quality" (P=0.24), "staff behaviour" (P=0.20), "brand identification" (P=0.16) and "selfdimension
brand
(P=0.14)
"hedonism
values"
concept"
equity;
of personal values on
of
"lifestyle" (P=0.15)of brand equity (H2, H4, H8, H9, H14, H20, H22 and 1124).
All five dimensionsof brand equity such as "physical quality" (P=0.09), "staff behaviour"
(P=0.19), "brand identification" (P=0.24),"lifestyle" (P=0.11) and "self-concept" (P=0.26)
have significant influence on brand loyalty. Among them, the "self-concept" (P=0.26)
dimension makes the strongest contribution, and "physical quality" (P=0.09) makes the
weakestcontribution in explaining the brandloyalty (H26, H27, H28, H29 and H30).
In testingthe mediatingeffect of brandequityon the relationshipbetweenpersonalvalues

loyalty,
five
dimensions
have
brand
all
of
personal
values
no significantinfluenceon
and
brandloyalty.Thus,testingthe mediatingeffectof brandequityon the relationshipbetween
loyalty
is
brand
and
not possible.In the examinationof the moderating
personalvalues
for
between
brand
the
relationship
of
value
money
on
equity andbrandloyalty,only
effect
"brand identification" (P=0.15) of brand equity is significantly influenced by the
for
of
effect
value
money(H34).
moderating
8.4.1PersonalValues Scale
The most widely used personal values inventories in consumer researchare the Rokeach
Value Survey (RVS) and List of Values(LOV) (Beatty et al., 1985). The RVS was designed
to measuretwo sets of values: One set comprises 18 terminal values, and the other set
encompasses18 instrumental values (Pitts and Woodside, 1983). Unfortunately, RVS has
encounteredcriticism for lack of relevance to the values of daily life. The responseto
criticisms of RVS is the development and testing of the more parsimonious LOV which
-230-
JNam. 2008
consistsof 9 values (Veroff et al., 1981;Kahle, 1983;Zins, 1998).

Many researchershave examinedthe RVS and LOV scales.For the RVS scale,Munson and
McQuarrie (1988) attempted to reduce the RVS to values most relevant to consumer
behaviour and found three factors underlying the 24 consumerbehaviour, relevant values:a
64values
to help fulfill adult responsibilities" factor, a "values to fulfill lifestyle goals" factor,
and a "values to help relieve tension" factor. In one research,Crosby et al. (1990) examined
the 18 instrumentaland 18 terminal valuesof the RVS scaleand found three dimensionsfor
instrumental values: self-direction (9 items), conformity (5 items) and virtuousness (4
items) and three dimensions for terminal values: self-actualization/hedonism(12 items),
idealism (3 items) and security (3 items). Prakashand Munson (1985) examined the RVS
fun
found
factors
(e.
the
seven
underlying
g.,
and enjoyment, workplace ethics,
and
values
sapience,autonomy,aesthetics,security and love).
For the LOV scale,severalattemptsofferedto furthercondense

the LOV itemsinto a value
found
dimensions
fewer
dimensions
(1983)
for LOV
(Zins,
1998).
Kahle
two
systemof
scale: internally-orientedvalues (self-fulfillment, sense of accomplishment,fun and
in
life,
warm relationshipswith othersandself-respect)and externally-oriented
enjoyment
values(security,senseof belongingandbeingwell respected).In anotherresearch,Homer
found
dimensions
for
(1988)
LOV scale: internal individual values
Kahle
three
and
(excitement, self-fulfillment and self-respect),external dimension values (sense of
belonging,being well respectedand security)and internal interpersonalvalues (warm
with others,andfun andenjoymentof life).
relationships
Although many researchershave examinedthe RVS and LOV scales,evidencethat any one
is better than any other is not very compelling (Beatty et al., 1985). From the previous
research,both RVS and LOV scales have proven effective in several consumption areas
(e.g., Vinson et al., 1977; Prakash and Munson, 1985; Beatty et al., 1985; Munson and
McQuarrie, 1988; Madrigal and Kahle, 1994; Madrigal, 1995; Keng and Liu, 1997; Shim
and Eastlick, 1998; Zins, 1998). However, any researchwhich simultaneously examined
both the RVS and LOV is not apparent.Therefore,this researchadoptedboth RVS and LOV
-231-
JNam. 2008
instrumental
RVS
because
18
the
Especially,
values
of
this
only
employed
research
scales.
later developed LOV arose mainly from RVS's terminal values. Finally, this research
from
9
LOV.
Table
8.1
from
RVS
instrumental
the
18
the
values
shows
and
values
adopted
the emergenceof personalvalues dimensionsand items from this research.
Table 8.1: Emergenceof PersonalValuesDimensionsand Items from this Research
Items
Dimensions
Competence Values
Intellectual, Capable,Independent,Broad-minded, Imaginative,

A senseof accomplishment,Ambitious, Courageous
Conformity Values
Obedient,Self-controlled,Polite, Responsible,Logical, Clean
Compassion Values
Forgiving, Helpful, Honest,Cheerful, Loving
Security, Being well respected,Self-fulfillment, Sense of belonging,

Self-respect
Hedonism Values
Excitement,Warm relationshipswith others,Fun and enjoymentof life
This researchyielded five dimensionsfor the personalvalues scale: competencevalues (8

items), conformity values (6 items), compassionvalues (5 items), self-oriented values (5
items), and hedonism values (3 items) with compositereliabilities of 0.90,0.84,0.89,0.86
have
dimensions
1,
five
All
the
than
0.85,
eigenvalues
greater
and
respectively.
and
findings
67%.
The
to
amounts
of this researchsuggest
cumulative percentageof variance
that the personalvalues scale,which is the combination of the RVS and LOV scales,is both
dimensions.
However,
five
does
this
research
with
not replicate the
valid and reliable
dimensions
findings
These
of
previous
are
researchers.
application of personal values
dimensions
that
the
which
suggested
of personal values
consistent with previous studies
Kahle,
1983;
(e.
Prakash
1985;
Munson,
Homer
the
g.,
and
and
across
situations
may vary
Kahle, 1988; Munson and McQuarrie, 1988; Crosby et al., 1990). Kahle et al. (1986) also
found similar results in their personal values study. They noted that the underlying
dimensionsof personal values may be contextual; thus factor loadings may vary slightly
from one situation to the next. In summary,personalvalues scale,which is the combination
dimensions
27
items
is
5
LOV,
RVS
the
and
with
new.
and
of
-232-
JNam. 2008
8.4.2 Brand Equity Scale

The operationalizations of brand equity fall into two groups: consumer perception and
Yoo
Donthu,
(1991;
2001).
1995;
Aaker
behaviour
(Cobb-Walgren
and
et al.,
consumer
1996) incorporated both perception and behavioural dimensions and suggested four
dimensions of brand equity: brand loyalty, brand awareness,perceived quality, and brand
image. The four dimensions of brand equity suggestedby Aaker (1991; 1996) have broad
(e.
Motameni
Shahrokhi,
g.,
and
researchers
many
employment
among
acceptance and
1998; Low and Lamb, 2000; Prasadand Dev, 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). However,other
dimensions,
brand
that
of
only
perceptual
consists
excluding
equity
researcherssuggested
behavioural dimensions, such as brand loyalty. For example, Keller (2008) proposedthat
behavioural dimensions should be excluded from brand equity becauseconsumersmay be
in the habit of buying a particular brand without really thinking much about why. Lassaret
dimensions
(2006)
brand
Johnson
(1995)
the
used
perceptual
et
al.
also
only
and
of
al.
brand
brand
identification,
(2006)
Johnson
In
using
equity
measured
et
al.
particular,
equity.
lifestyle and personality (self-concept).Lassaret al. (1995), Johnsonet al. (2006) and Keller
(2008) strictly distinguishedthe perceptualdimensionsfrom the behavioural dimensionsso
that behaviour is a consequenceof brand equity rather than brand equity itself. Collectively,
the current researchviewed only consumerperception as a component of brand equity and
brand
identification,
lifestyle
brand
that
of
self-concept,
equity scale
consists
examined a
and perceivedquality.
The analysesidentified dimensionsof brand equity and createdthe valid and reliable, five
dimension brand equity scale: self-concept (8 items), brand identification (6 items), staff
behaviour (5 items), physical quality (5 items) and lifestyle (3 items) with composite
0.95,0.93,0.88,0.85
of
reliabilities
and 0.88, respectively. All five dimensions have
eigenvaluesgreater than 1, and the cumulative percentageof variance amountsto 74%. In

terms of criterion-related validity, all five dimensions made significant contributions to
brand
three
measures:
customer
all
satisfaction,
overall
external
equity and brand
explaining
loyalty. The results of each statistical analysis showed support for criterion-related validity
of the brand equity scale.
-233-
JNam. 2008
The findings of this researchdiffer slightly from the original assumptionof the brand equity
indicates
This
that self-concept,originally assumedto consist of separate
scale.
research
dimensions:actual self-concept(2 items), ideal self-concept(2 items), social self-concept(2
items) and ideal social self-concept(2 items), is a unidimensional construct. In addition, as
Ekinci
(2008),
(2004)
by
Cronin
(2000),
Madanoglu
and
et
al.
perceived
et al.
suggested
behaviour.
The results
into
dimensions:
bifurcates
two
quality
and
staff
physical
quality
dimensions,
the
two
the
quality
perceived
originally
of
supported
validity and reliability
"
identification,
"
"self-concept,
"brand
by
Gronroos
(1984).
In
summary,
recommended
"lifestyle, " "staff behavioue' and "physical quality" are important dimensions of brand
equity.

Personal values, regarded as highly abstract beliefs, help attitude formation in view of
drives, emotions, and needs(Zins, 1998). Personalvalues are widely thought to determine
formation
for
thereby,
the
are partly responsible
what attributes a consumerwill seek,and
between
brands
1989).
Although
(Muller,
the
towards
relationships
personal
attitudes
of
brand
dimensions
identified
behaviour,
such
as
of
equity
physical
quality,
staff
values and
brand identification, lifestyle and self-conceptare generally assumed,little is known about
the nature of the relationships. Pitts and Woodside (1983) found a strong relationship
betweenpersonalvalues and brand choice criteria. In other studies,Zins (1998) and Brunso
lifestyle.
found
Madrigal (1995) demonstrated
(2004)
that
can
explain
personal
values
et al.
that personal values are significantly related to personality type. To date, no researchers
have investigatedthe effects of personalvalueson the identified dimensionsof brand equity
simultaneously.
In the examination of the relationship betweenpersonalvalues and brand equity, the results
suggestthat somedimensionsof personalvalues make statistically significant contributions
for estimating dimensions of brand equity. All five dimensions of brand equity were
explainedby some aspectsof personalvalues. The "physical quality" and "staff behaviour"
dimensions had the highest R2 value of 0.10 respectively; the "brand identification"
-234-
Chgpfer 8. Discussionand Conclusion
JNam, 2008
dimension had the lowest R2with 0.04. The "conformity values" and "self-oriented values"
are significant dimensionsin estimatingthe "physical quality" dimensions of brand equity;
"compassion values" and "self-oriented values" in "staff behaviour"; "self-oriented values"
in "brand identification"; "hedonism values" in "lifestyle"; "conformity values" and "selfdimension
brand
in
dimensions
"self-concept"
the
of
equity.
oriented values"
However, different values' dimensionsseemto becomesalient for different dimensionsof
brand equity. Previous research(e.g., Pitts and Woodside, 1984; Homer and Kahle, 1988;
Zins, 1998; Shim and Eastlick, 1998; Jayawardhena,2004; Bloemer and Dekker, 2007)
different
in
different
dimensions
that
value
roles
play
explaining consumption
suggested
broadly
behaviours,
findings
in line with those
the
this
of
research
are
and
attitudes and
findings. As can be expected, the "hedonism values" dimension, including excitement,
wann relationshipswith others, and fun and enjoyment of life, strongly correlated with the
"lifestyle" dimension, and the "compassionvalues" dimension, including forgiving, helpful,
honest, cheerful and loving, was significant in estimating the "staff behaviour" dimension.
However, the "competencevalues" dimension,including intellectual, capable, independent,
broad-minded, imaginative, a sense of accomplishment, ambitious and courageous,
dimensions
brand
implying
the
that the "competence
of
affects
none
of
equity,
significantly
brand
is
important
Especially,
the "self-oriented
predictor
of
equity.
not
aspect
values"
being
including
dimension,
well respected, self-fulfillment, sense of
security,
values"
belonging and self-respect,had positive effects on four of the brand equity dimensions,with
the "lifestyle" dimension the only exception. This result indicates that the power of "self.
oriented values" in explaining brand equity exceedsthat of the other four values. Broadly,
these research findings support the original premise that personal values have positive
brand
identified
dimensions
the
of
equity.
effects on

Severalconsequencesderive from brand equity, but a prominent one, today, is brand loyalty.
Providing customers with a strong brand is widely recognized as a means of improving
brand loyalty (Johnsonet al., 2006). Indeed, researchershave provided empirical evidence
-235-
JNam, 2008
for a positive relationship between brand equity and brand loyalty. For example, Yoo and
Donthu (2001), Washburnand Plank (2002) and Chen and Chang (2008) showed a highly
intention.
between
brand
Especially, Cobband
purchase
relationship
equity
positive
Walgren et al. (1995) found that the brand with the higher equity in service (hotels) and
product (household cleaners) generated significantly greater preferences and purchase
intentions. Johnson et al. (2006) also found that brand equity, consisting of self-concept,
lifestyle and brand identification, becomeprogressivelymore positive on loyalty intention
brand
brand
loyalty
been
between
have
Although
time.
the
equity
and
over
relationships
discussedtheoretically, no researchershave investigatedthe effects of identified dimensions
brand
brand
behaviour,
identification, lifestyle and
equity
such
as
physical
quality,
staff
of
self-concepton the brand loyalty at the sametime.
In the investigationsof the relationshipsbetweenbrand equity dimensionsand brand loyalty,
the results demonstrated that all the five identified dimensions of brand equity are
loyalty
in
brand
(R2=0.52;p=0.000). Among the brand
estimating
important
dimensions,
dimension by having the
"self-concept"
the
most
was
equity
strongesteffect on brand loyalty. The "physical quality" of brand equity was the weakest
dimension affecting brand loyalty. This researchconfirms the findings of the studies by
Boulding et al. (1993), Zeithmal et al. (1996) and Bloemer et al. (1990), in which physical
brand
behaviour
loyalty;
to
staff
related
positively
studies by Kim et al. (2001)
quality and
in
brand
identification
(2006),
has
Johnson
et
al.
which
a significant effect on brand
and
loyalty; studiesby Del Rio et al. (2001) and Johnsonet al. (2006), in which brand loyalty is
influencedby lifestyle; studiesby Graeff (1996), Kressmannet al. (2006) and Johnsonet al.
(2006), in which self-concept has a positive effect on brand loyalty. Research findings
between
identified
dimensions of brand
the
relationships
presence
of
significant
showed
equity and brand loyalty.

Previous research has provided some evidence that personal values may be useful in
-236-
JAram. 2008
behaviour
Woodside,
1983).
Personal values are
(Pitts
and
understanding customer
including
for
behaviour
selecting leisure travel style
significant
predicting consumer
(Madrigal, 1995), preferencefor leisure activities on holiday (Madrigal and'Kahle, 1994),
hotel choice (Zins, 1998), and complaint behaviour (Keng and Lui, 1997). However, the
empirical relationship between personalvalues and behaviour is generally low (Brunso et
bridge
2004).
A
to
the gap with different mediating
studies
al.,
number of
attempted
constructs(e.g., Homer and Kahle, 1988;Valette-Florenceand Jolibert, 1990; Van Raaij and
Verhallen, 1994; Goldsmith et al., 1997).Thesestudiesintendedto show the existenceof a
link, perhapsan indirect one, betweenpersonalvaluesand behaviour.In addition, a meansend chain model also provided a theoretical and conceptualstructure connecting personal
behaviour
less
(Shim and Eastlick, 1998; Wansink,
abstractvariables and consumer
values,
2003). This researchmade an effort to bridge the gap between personal values and brand
loyalty with brand equity, and investigatedthe mediating effects of brand equity on the
relationship betweenpersonalvaluesand brand loyalty.
This researchadoptedthe Baron and Kenny's(1986)criteria to establishwhetheror not

conditionsfor mediationof brandequityexist. Accordingto Baron and Kenny (1986),in
brand
to
mediation
of
equity, significant relationshipsmust occur between
prove
order
personalvaluesand brandequity,betweenbrandequity and brand loyalty, and between
brand
loyalty.
As
and
mentionedearlier, some dimensionsof personal
personalvalues
valueshavepositiveeffectson dimensionsof brandequity.Moreover,all five dimensionsof
brand equity have significant effectson brand loyalty. However,in the examinationof
dimensions
between
personalvalues
andbrandloyalty,noneof the dimensions
relationship
brand
have
loyalty.
Thesefindings are partially
effect
on
values
a
positive
of personal
Woodside
(1983),
Pitts
Homerand Kahle (1988),Shim
the
and
with
studies
of
consistent
(2004)and Brunsoet al. (2004) which found that no
and Eastlick(1998),Jayawardhena
directeffectexistsbetweenpersonalvaluesandbehaviour.Pitts and Woods(1983)founda
strongrelationshipbetweenpersonalvaluesand brand choice criteria and a very weak
between
personalvaluesand purchaseintention.The studiesof Homer and
relationship
Kahle (1988),Shim and Eastlick(1998),and Jayawardhena
(2004)reportedthat personal
valueshavea positiveeffect on attitude;attitudehasa positiveeffect on behaviour,but no
-237-
JNam, 2008
direct effect exists betweenpersonalvaluesand behaviour.Brunso et al. (2004) also found

that personal values influence lifestyle, and lifestyle influences behaviour, but no direct
effect exists between personal values and behaviour. Research findings showed that no
direct effect exists between personal values and brand loyalty. However, testing the
between
brand
the
effect
of
equity
on
personal values and brand
mediating
relationship
loyalty is not possible becausethe conditions to prove mediation of brand equity do not
exist.
a

Many researcherssuggestedthat both brand equity and value for money are important
antecedentsof brand loyalty. As mentioned earlier, empirical evidence of a positive
relationship between brand equity and brand loyalty arose from the work of many
(e.
researchers g., Cobb-Walgrenet al., 1995; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Washburnand Plank,
2002; Johnson et al., 2006; Chen and Chang, 2008). Also, prior empirical research
identified value for money as a major determinantof loyalty in such settings as telephone
Drew,
1991;
Lin
Wang,
2006),
(Bolton
and
and
airline travel (Sirdeshmukhet al.,
services
2002), retail services(Sweeneyet al., 1997; Sirohi et al., 1998; Sirdeshmukhet al., 2002),
hotel
industry
industry
(Hartline
(Tam,
2000)
and
and Jones, 1996; Oh, 1999).
restaurant
Although past researchersinvestigatedthe separateeffects of brand equity and value for
loyalty,
brand
no empirical study to date has simultaneouslyexaminedthe impact
money on
of brand equity and value for money on brand loyalty. The interrelationshipsamong these
constructshave not been fully uncoveredor understood.This researchexaminedwhether or
not value for money (good vs. bad) moderatesthe relationship between brand equity and
brand loyalty.
This research adopted Baron and Kenny's (1986) method using moderated regression
analysisto examine the moderatingeffect of value for money. The results revealedthat the
loyalty
is
just
brand
brand
direct but is also moderatedby value for
not
effect of
equity on
money (good vs. bad) which had a significant moderatingeffect on the relationship between
brandequity and brand loyalty (A R2= 03; p= 0.000). However, among the five dimensions
.
-238-
JNam, 2008
dimension
brand
identification"
"brand
the
appearedto be significantly
of
equity, only
influenced by the moderating effect of value for money. The findings of this research
partially confirmed the original proposition and implied that value for money boosts the
influence of brand equity on brand loyalty.
These findings may indicate that the interactionof brand equity with value for money tends
to operatenot at a global level, but at a dimensionallevel. Only the "brand identification"
(P=0.15) dimension of brand equity indicates a significant positive interaction with value
for money on brand loyalty. Although the "self-concepf' dimension of brand equity had no
interaction
for
brand
loyalty,
the "self-concept" dimension
with
value
money
on
statistical
had a higher coefficient (P=0.07)than "physical quality" (P= -0.03), "staff behaviour" (P= 0.00) and "lifestyle" (P= -0.04). Caution is necessarywhen interpreting this finding since
consumersmay develop repeatbuying patternsbecauseparticular brandsprovide functional
benefits and symbolic benefits (Bhat and Reddy, 1998). Park et al. (1986) assertedthat
functional benefits relate to specific and practical consumption problems; whereas,
symbolic benefits relate to self-expressionand prestige. The "brand identification" and
6'self-concept"dimensions of brand equity seem related to symbolic benefits; whereas,
"physical quality," "staff behaviour" and "lifestyle" dimensions of brand equity seem
related to functional benefits. The results may provide a basis for understandingthe role of
is
benefits
for
One
that
suggestion
symbolic
money.
such as "brand identification"
value
interaction
have
"self-concept"
synergistic
effect with value for money on brand loyalty.
and
The results indicate that, although customersmay believe that a hospitality brand provides
high levels of symbolic benefits such as brand identification and self-concept, the
follow
is
doest
that
that brand loyalty will be high. Brand
necessarily
not
presumption
loyalty doesnot dependon symbolic benefit alone,and higher levels of symbolic benefit are
worthwhile to the extent that customersbelieve that value for money is being enhanced.
Arguably, although a hospitality brand may not be high in terms of symbolic benefits, the
fact that value for money is positive can contribute to high levels of brand loyalty.
-239-
JNam. 2008
8.5 Contributions of the Research

This research investigated the antecedentsand consequencesof brand equity in the
hospitality industry. The results of the many analysesof this research provide several
conceptual and theoretical contributions, as well as practical contributions for managersin
the hospitality industry.
8.5.1 Theoretical Contributions

This researchhas important theoreticalcontributionsthat benefit brand equity research
in several ways. The key contribution of this research is that it provides a
in
brand
the
and
consequences
antecedents
of
equity
comprehensiveresearchmodel of
the hospitality industry (SeeFigure 8.1). The theoreticalcontributionsthat this current
researchmakesare:
First, this research,through empirical studies,provides validity and reliability for a
is
(RVS
LOV).
Although
two
a
combination
of
scales
scale,
which
and
values
personal
identifiable
RVS
LOV,
examined
and
no
researchers
study simultaneously
previous
examinedRVS and LOV. Tberefore,the currentresearchexaminedthe personalvalues
instrumental
RVS
9
18
values
of
and
values of LOV. The analysis
scaleconsistingof
indicates the existenceof five distinct dimensionsof personal values: "competence
values... ..confort-nity values," "compassion values," "self-oriented values" and
"hedonism values." This new scale with 5 dimensions and 27 items is more
due
for
to the combinationof the RVS and
values
personal
comprehensive measuring
LOV scales.However,previousresearchers
suggestedthe possibility that dimensionsof
personalvalues vary slightly from one situation to the next, and thus this new scale
be
different
to
to
applied
when
carefully
examined
contexts.
needs
The secondcontribution of the researchis establishmentof the underlying dimensionsof
brand equity in the hospitality industry through empirical studies.This researchfocusedon
identifying the underlying dimensionsof consumer-basedbrand equity which is assumedto
-240-
JNam. 2008
lifestyle
brand
identification,
findings
The
and
self-concept.
quality,
of
consist of perceived
this researchsuggestthat the five dimensionsof brand equity are valid and reliable. The
important dimensions of brand equity are: "physical quality," "staff behaviour," "brand
identification," "lifestyle" and "self-concept." The findings of this researchdiffer slightly
from the original assumptionregarding the brand equity scale. An interesting point is that
dimensions
behaviour.
In
two
of
physical
quality
and
quality
consists
staff
perceived
ideal
self-concept,
self-concept, social selfaddition, self-concept, consisting of actual
in
ideal
is
this research.
unidimensional
construct
social self-concept, a
concept and
Although previous researchersexaminedthe brand equity scale, no empirical study for the
hospitality industry examined brand equity consisting of perceived quality, brand
identification, lifestyle and self-concept. Moreover, this research enhances the
brand
the
of
equity concept through empirical research. The validity and
understanding
brand
the
equity scale, which consists of physical quality, staff behaviour,
of
reliability,
brand identification, lifestyle and self-concept, suggestedthat researchersmay need to
better
brand
dimensions
to
these
understandcustomers' perception of
equity
of
consider
brand equity. The identification of the dimensionsof brand equity ("physical quality," "staff
behaviour," "brand identification," "lifestyle" and "self-concept") adds insight into how
hospitality brand equity is representedin consumers'minds.
Third, this researchoffers insight into the theoretical relationships among personalvalues,
brand equity and brand loyalty in the hospitality industry. The researchmodel lent support
to the means-endchain model that arguedthat the influence flows from abstractpersonal
less
to
abstractmediating variables and to specific behaviour. This researchtried to
values
bridge the gap with brand equity between personal values and brand loyalty, and
investigated the mediating effects of brand equity on the relationship between personal
brand
loyalty.
Concerning
the researchmodel, the findings reveal that some
and
values
dimensionsof personalvalues significantly relateto dimensionsof brand equity. Suchbrand
equity dimensions,in turn, have a direct influence on brand loyalty. However, no dimension
brand
loyalty, implying that the conditions to prove
affects
of personalvalues significantly
brand
do
it
Thus,
is
not
exist.
of
equity
mediation
not possible to test the mediating effect of
brand equity on the relationship betweenpersonalvalues and brand loyalty in the research
-241-
JNam. 2008
links
is
first
This
to
the
the
examine
among
associative
model.
research
empirical effort
personal values, less abstract brand equity as a mediating variable and brand loyalty, and
interrelationships
important
in
the
among thesethree
understanding
makes an
contribution
constructsin the hospitality industry.
Finally, this researchprovidesan improvedunderstandingof the role of value for money

in the hospitality industry.Although both brandequity and value for money havebeen
found to affect brand loyalty separately,no known empirical study, to date, considers
the interactioneffect. Thus,in this research,valuefor money (good vs. bad) was setasa
between
brand
brand
influences
the
equity and
relationship
moderatingvariable,which
loyalty. The results suggestthat the effect of brand equity on brand loyalty is not just
direct but is also moderatedby value for money.However,amongthe five dimensions
be
dimension
identification"
(P=0.15)
"brand
brand
to
the
appeared
equity, only
of
for
influenced
by
the
of
value
effect
money.Althoughthe"selfmoderating
significantly
interaction
for
had
brand
dimension
statistical
with
value
moneyon
no
equity
of
concept"
brandloyalty,the "self-concept"dimensionhada highercoefficient(P=0.07)than"physical
finding
"lifestyle"
(P=
This
behaviour"
(P=
"staff
(P=
and
quality"
-0.04).
-0.00)
-0.03),
for
brand
interaction
that
the
with
value
of
equity
moneytendsto operatenot
suggest
may
benefits
dimension
level,
level,
but
symbolic
and
suchasbrandidentification
at a
at a global
interaction
for
brand
have
tend
to
effect
with
synergistic
value
a
money
on
andself-concept
loyalty. If further studiesconfirm this finding from the presentexploratoryresearch,the
in
important
the interrelationships
addition
understanding
validationrepresentsan
among
brandequity,valuefor moneyandbrandloyalty in the hospitalityindustry.
8.5.2 Practical and Managerial Implications

The findings provide severalpractical and managerialimplications for hospitality managers.
First, in terms of antecedentsof brand equity, the role of personal values in the formation
and determination of brand equity is supported by the significant relationship between
personal values and brand equity. The results indicate that different values, dimensions
become salient for different dimensions of brand equity. The "conformity values"
-242-
JNam. 2008
dimension of personal values was involved in the "physical quality" and "self-concept"
dimensions of brand equity; "compassion values" in "staff behaviour"; "self-oriented
identification"
brand
in
behaviour
....
"physical
"
"staff
and "self-concept";
values"
quality,
"hedonism values" in "lifestyle. " Thus, hospitality managers can design promotion and
advertising campaigns more effectively by considering the different value dimensions
brand
In
different
dimensions
"self-oriented
the
equity.
of
particular,
with
associated
values" dimension, including security, being well respected, self-fulfillment, sense of
belonging and self-respect,had positive effects on four of the brand equity dimensions,the
"lifestyle" dimension being the only exception. The power of self-oriented values in
influencing brand equity exceedsthat of the other four values. As self-oriented values seem
to have a prominent role in determining brand equity, the obvious hospitality implication is
to focus on communicating self-oriented values and make sure that service delivery
being
for
or
exceed
expectations
security,
well respected,self-fulfillment,
processesmeet
industry,
hospitality
belonging
In
the
this might be achievedby
and self-respect.
senseof
in
Contact
a
play
vital
role.
contact
employees
employees
relationship management which
in
take
the
special care of
customers terms of respecting the customer, giving
should
being
feeling
being
family,
totally reliable, etc. In addition,
the
a
of
part
of
customers
hospitality managersmight initiate promotion and advertising campaignsemphasizingthese
knowledge
This
of personal values can provide hospitality
self-oriented
values.
same
for
brand
tools
and
practical
achieving
with
very
powerful
equity.
managers
Second, this research provides evidence that brand equity is best understood by five
behaviour,
dimensions:
brand
identification, lifestyle and
quality,
staff
physical
underlying
self-concept, which have positive effects on brand loyalty. The results imply that strong
brand equity can causea significant increasein brand loyalty and a lack of brand equity can
damagebrand loyalty for hospitality firms. That is, if hospitality firms do not expendeffort
to improve customer-basedbrand equity, then hospitality firms should expect declining
brand loyalty, over time. Therefore, hospitality managers should consider carefully the
significance of physical quality, staff behaviour, brand identification, lifestyle and selfconcept.The specific practical and managerialimplications about each dimension of brand
equity are:
-243-
JNam. 2008
Physical quality was an underlying dimension of brand equity, and had a significantly
is
important
brand
loyalty.
in the hospitality
Physical
especially
quality
positive effect on
industry becausethe intangibility of the offering leads customers to rely on tangibles to
influence
Moreover,
(Wall
Berry,
2007).
the
physical
quality
can
evaluate
experience
and
customers' feelings, which may encouragecustomersto remain or to leave (Mehrabian and
Russell, 1974). Therefore, hospitality managersshould focus on physical quality which
facility
layout,
lighting,
factors,
including
design
to
equipment,
color,
relates
and ambient
fulfill
In
design
the
should
customers'
needs.
surroundings
music, etc., and
of physical
interior
design
Wright
(2002)
Lovelock
that
can effect customers'
and
reported
particular,
first impressions toward the service's setting. Therefore, innovative architectural design
would be a priority. However, becausecompletely changing the physical surroundings
decorative
fixtures such as
and
adding
new
entails capital expense,adding new carpeting
fashionable
be
for
alternatives
other
accessories
can
or
enhancing the physical
pictures
hospitality
firms
hospitality
Moreover,
of
site.
managers
of
a
should upgrade
quality
in
fulfill
hotel
facilities
keep
to
the
clean
order
customers'
or
restaurant
and
existing
expectations.
Staff behaviour was an underlying dimension of brand equity, and had a significantly
positive effect on brand loyalty. Thus, hospitality managers should concentrate on
improving staff behaviour in the hospitality industry. High quality staff behaviour can be
effectively strengthened through appropriate training programs which help staff to
understandthe comprehensivemeaning of service and to provide a broader perspectiveof
providing quality service. A significant mistake would occur if staff training were narrowly
delivered, say, in terms of just being respectful, polite and pleasant to customers. Staff
should know the importance of making customersthe focus of attention (personalization)
and avoiding customers'waiting times (speedyservice). In particular, front-line employees
play a key role becauseof high customerand employeecontact in the hospitality industry.
Furthermore,front-line employeesare regardedas the important people to make the link
between the customers and the management of hospitality business (Klenert and
Hemmington, 2001). Therefore, hospitality managers should select those employees
carefully and train them well.
-244-
JNam. 2008
Brand identification was an underlying dimension of brand equity, and had a significantly
imply
loyalty.
brand
findings
The
that customers' identification with a
positive effect on
certain brand makes that customer differentiate the brand from others, and leads to high
brand loyalty. Therefore, a worthy consideration for hospitality managers is to think
in
brand
identification
hospitality
industry.
For
the
the
about
strengthening
strategically
brand
identification
hospitality
by providing
try
to
should
strengthen
managers
example,
opportunities for networking and socializing, and by offering special monthly functions
hospitality
In
dinners,
themes
tasting
events,
etc.
addition,
charity
such as wine
with
managers should develop more focused communication strategies such as newsletters,
informed
identify
keep
to
them
to
of
monthly
events
customers
enable
etc.
and
pamphlets,
with the hospitality brand.
Lifestyle was loaded as a brand equity dimension,and showeda significant effect on brand
loyalty. This research suggeststhat customers develop brand loyalty becauseparticular
brandsfit well with their lifestyles. In particular, since hospitality servicesare characterized
by intangibilities, creating and maintaining the brand reflecting the lifestyle of the primary
target market is crucial. An individual's lifestyle is not fixed and immutable: as a person
hospitality
life-cycle,
lifestyle
Thus,
the
through
significantly.
may
change
managers
grows
in
lifestyles
keep
data.
target
to
the
order
customers'
up-to-date
monitor
continuously
should
Lifestyle information could be obtained based on the inferences drawn from customer
how
brand
fits
into
lifestyles,
basic
the
their
needs,
what customers think is
surveys of
interesting, how customers spend their time, etc. After carefully considering the target
customers' lifestyles, hospitality managersshould concentrate on developing advertising
distinctive
hospitality
brand with
the
that
synergy
of
a
emphasize
and promotional activities
the target customers'lifestyles.
The findings demonstratedthat self-conceptis loaded as a brand equity dimension and is a
most important dimension by having the strongest effect on brand loyalty. Therefore,
hospitality managersshould concentrateon building a positive brand image by designing
proper promotions and advertising strategieswhich contain the customers' self-images.If a
is
image
the
target
customers being up-to-date,hospitality managersshould design
of
major
-245-
ChZter 8. Discussionand Conclusion
JlVam. 2008
in
logos
furnishings,
to
layout
featuring
order
colors,
and
of
a modernized
advertising
bonding
between
hospitality
develop
the
emotional
enhance symbolic consumption and
firm and its customers.A good exampleis the changein the brand logo of the Hyatt hotels.
Hyatt hotels changed its logo after finding that the original one implied a conservative
image; whereastheir prime target customers'self-imagesare more modern. Furthen-norc,
hotel
hospitality
help
the
traits
position
managers
could
these target customers' self-image
in
or restaurant a competitive market.
In summary,this researchprovides evidencethat brand equity consists of five dimensions
brand
has
brand
dimension
effect
on
a significantly positive
equity
of
and each underlying
loyalty. Therefore, hospitality managersshould capitalize on these findings, by devising
dimensions
to
brand
these
establish
that
when
attempting
encompass
strategies
appropriate
definite brand equity and strong brand loyalty from customers'viewpoints.
Finally, the practical and managerial implications of the findings concern the important
brand
brand
indicate
the
for
that
The
equity on
effect of
results
money.
effect of value
loyalty is not just direct but is also moderatedby value for money. In particular, value for
i
dcnti
ri
between
"brand
found
the
the
cation"
to
relationship only
moderate
money was
dimension of brand equity and brand loyalty. Hospitality managers may improve tile
for
by
developing
loyalty
brand
impact
brand
via
money,
good
value
on
equity
of
positive
frequent
hospitality
if
However,
use of
managers
should
avoid
possible,
pricing strategies.
because
lead
low-pricc
those
consumersto think
strategy
or
a
consistent
price promotions
brand
by
brand
As
(i.
deals
the
the
provided
e.,
equity).
about
utility
not
and
primarily about
be
brand
do
the
used
and
must
strength of
equity
not enhance
a result, price promotions
level
higher
Therefore,
with more advanced
price
combining an equal or
with great caution.
brandutility may be a more desirablepricing strategyfrom a brand equity perspective.
8.6 Limitations and Future Research

Although the present researchmakes important contributions to the understandingof the
brand
limitations
of
equity,
several
remain which may need
and
consequences
antecedents
-246-
JNam, 2008
for
direction
findings.
Overcoming
interpreting
them
the
can
provide
consideration when
future research.Limitations and future researchareasrelatedto the presentresearchare:
The questionnairepre-test revealedthat non-nativeEnglish speakershave some difficulties
in understandingthe context of some questions.Therefore, the population in the present
hotel
familiar
English
with restaurant and
speakerswho are
research consists of native
brandsin the UK. The reasonfor selectingthesetwo categories- hotel and restaurantbrands
hotels
fact
from
sectors
properly
that
are
representative
the
restaurants
and
mainly
stems
limitations
industry.
One
hospitality
this
the
of
the
of
the
characteristics of
reflecting
(British
it
is
to
is
the
to
evaluation of
that
national)
and
culture
one
specific
research
hospitality industry segment - hotel and restaurantbrands. Therefore, the 'results of the
be
future
to
be
Accordingly,
should
applied
research
generalized.
present researchcan not
diverse countries and to different market categoriesin order to establishexternal validity of
thesefindings.
The secondlimitation relatesto the use of conveniencesampling.Although screening

hotel
familiar
UK
if
identify
restaurant
and
to
with
was
respondent
questionswere asked
brandsin advanceof beinggiventhe questionnaire,
qualityof the datausedin this research
data
hotels
to
due
be
to
the
used
gather
method
on
sampling
convenience
may vulnerable
did
in
included
this
Perhaps,
those
research,
not truly represent
respondents,
andrestaurants.
future
Thus,
hotels
researchshouldconsider
and
restaurants.
populationsof customersof
design.
More
comprehensive
systematicand probability sampling
a
more
sampling
using
wouldbringhigherreliability andvalidity to the dataandfindings.
Third, although the constructs of brand equity, value for money, and brand loyalty are
conceptualizedseparately,preliminary analysisrevealedseveral,high inter-correlationsand
multicollinearity effects between variables. Therefore, steps have been taken to reduce
multicollinearity in this research;however, some effects may still remain. As a result, the
for
interaction
term
the
coefficient of
value for money must be interpreted with caution
becausethis moderatorcorrelatesto both brand equity and brand loyalty. To provide a clear
interpretableinteraction term, a moderator variable is, desirably, uncorrelated to both the
-247-
Nam. 2008
.
predictor and the criterion. Future researchshould concentrate on developing a clearer

articulation of the constructsusedin this research,particularly that of value for money.
A fourth limitation of this researchconcernssome of the scalesused to measurepersonal
values and brand equity. Although the personalvaluesand brand equity scalesdevelopedin
this researchwere adoptedfrom previous research,the scaleshave not yet beensubjectedto
rigorous examination.Therefore, future researchshouldattempt to use thesescalesto verify
and develop more comprehensivescalesfor approximating personal values and customerbasedbrand equity in other situations.
Finally, this researchprovides some preliminary insights into the inter-relationshipsamong
personal values, brand equity, value for money and brand loyalty. Although previous
researchprovided support for the relationshipsamong researchvariables, this researchis
only the first step in developing a researchmodel of the antecedentsand consequencesof
brand equity. Therefore, future researchshould build upon this researchmodel and attempt
to provide further insight into the natureof theserelationshipsunder different conditions. In
light of theseconsiderations,perhapsthe findings of this researchwill provide a firm basis
on which to undertakeadditional researchwork.
-248-
APPENDIXES
JNam. 2008
Apj2endixA. Final Questionnaire
APPENDIXA
FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
*Hotel Version
School of Management
Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH UK
Dear Sir/Madam,
am a postgraduate student at the University of Surrey. As part of my PhD research, I arn

investigating consumer perceptions of hotel brands. You could be of great help if you would
kindly complete the following questionnaire.
The questionnaire takes approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. The information YOU

for
be
only
used
academic purposes and will remain strictly confidential.
will
provide
Yourthoughtfulinput to the studyis greatlyappreciated

andwill be of substantialvalueto
during
have
If
any
questions
your participation in the study, please do not hesitate
me. you
to ask for assistanceor clarification.
Thank you very much for your time and co-operation.
Jang-Hyeon Nam
University of Surrey
Guildford, Surrey, GUX 7XH
Tel: +44 (0)7765 436101, Fax +44 1483 686301
E-mail: j. nam@surrey.ac.uk
;':
"1
-251
lo A-*"4 by
At 5MOBC
Ion
AI'15t
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
Guildford,
SECTIONA:
A HOTEL
BRAND
YOU ARE
FAMILIAR
Surrey GU2 7XH UK
WITH
is a list of hotel brands which have more than one hotel in the IJK.
Please select one hotel brand with which you are familiar and tick () the appropriate box. Then
answer the questions that follow based on the hotel brand that you selected.
Directions:
The following
11 Best Western
0 Express by Holiday Inn
0 Ibis
El Quality Hotel
1:1 Britannia Hotels
El Forestdale
0 Innkeepers Lodge
El Ramada Jarvis
C1 Comfort Inn
0 Formule 10
El Corus
0 Grand Heritage Hotels
0 Macdonald Hotels
0 Small Luxury Hotels
0 Courtyard by Marriott
El Marriott
1:1 Swallow I lotels
E] Crowne Plaza
0 Great Inns of Britain

0 Greene King Hotels
0 Novotel
0 Thistle
E3 Days Inn
0 Hilton
0 Old English Inns
0 Travelodge
El De Vere
0 Holiday Inn
E) Premier Inn
0 Young & Co
1:1 Regal I lotels
Jurys Inn
(Please describe)
El Other Hotel Brand
Q1. How long have you been aware of this hotel brand?
03
El 6 to 12 months
El I to 3 years
1:1 Less than I month

01 to 6 months
to 6 years
El 6 years or more
Q2. Using the following scale, please identify how familiar you are with this hotel brand. Please
tick (V) an appropriate number. Rating I rneans you are not at all familiar with this hotel brand and
7 rneans you are very familiar with this hotel brand. It' you IM Your opinion is between thesc
extrernes, please tick () a number in the middle of the scale.
30
213
I El
not at all
familiar
40
50
6E]
7D
very
familiar
Q3. Have you ever stayed in a hotel of this brand during the last two years?
EDNo
0 Yes
(if your answer is No, please go to Section 11on the next page)
Q4. Approximately,
years?
how many times have you stayed in a hotel of this brand (luring tile last two
Q5. What was the main purpose of your last stay in a hotel of this hotel?
0 Business
11 Businessand Leisure
13 Leisure
11 Other (
Q6. Overall, how would you evaluate the value of your experience for the price you paid when
staying in a hotel of this brand?
10
3L]
20
40
5E]
60
7LI
extremely
extremely
bad value
good value
Q7. Overall,
completely
dissatisfied
how would
10
you describe
211
your stay experience

30
40
-252-
5 F-I
at the hotel of this brand?

6 F-I
7E]
comple(CIN
satisfied
Association
of MBAs
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
Guildford,SurreyGU27XHUK
SECTIONB:
OVERALL
IMAGE
OF THE HOTEL
BRAND
THAT
YOU SELECTED
IN SECTION A
Please tick () your agreement or disagreernent with each of the l'ollowing statements
regarding the overall image of the hotel brand that you selected in Section A. Use the scale of' I
(strong4v disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Directions:
Strongly
Statement
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
11
(2)
(3
4)
5)
(6
(7)
Employees of this hotel listen to me.
(1)
()
()
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
This hotel's successes are rny successes.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5,)
(6)
7,
This hotel reflects my personal lifestyle.
(1)
(2)
(6)
(7)
This hotel's facilities are visually appealing.
(1)
(2)
(6)
(7)
This hotel has modern -lookin,
equipment.
(3)
4)
(5)
Employees of this hotel are competent in their jobs.
(7)
Employees of this hotel seem to anticipate what I want.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
11,
I am interested in what others think about this hotel.
(1)
(2)
()
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Materials associated with the service (such as menus, furniture)

are visually appealing at this hotel.
2)
(3)
(4)
15
(6
7)
it feels like a personal
(1)
(2)
(J)
(5)
16,
2)
(3
(51
(6)
7)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(5)
61
71
(5)
6;
71
When someone praises this hotel,

compliment.
This hotel is totally in line with my lifestyle.

This hotel gives you a visually attractive room.
(1)
(2)
(q)
If I talk about this hotel, I usually say "we" rather than "they. "
(1)
2)
(3)
Employees of this hotel are helpful.
J)
If a story in the media criticizes
this hotel,
I would
feel
(1
4)
4)
(31)
(41
5,
6,
4)
(4)
5)
(6)
(7)
embarrassed.
This hotel is clean.
Employees of this hotel are friendly.
(1
12
3)
(4,
5,
6,
7)
When someone criticizes

insult.
(1)
4)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(2
3,
4?
5)
6)
(71
this hotel, it feels like a personal
Staying in this hotel supports my lifestyle.
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
Please take a moment to think about the overall image of the hotel brand that you
selected in section A. Consider the kind of person who typically visits this hotel brand. Imagine this
person in your mind and then describe this person using one or more personal adjectives SLIChas
organized, classy, poor, stylish, friendly, modern, traditional, popular, or whatever personal adjectives
Directions:
you can use. Once you have done this, tick () your agreement or disagreement with each of' the
following statements. Use the scale of 1 (Wrongly disagree) to 7 (Nlrong4v agree).
Strongly
Statement
Strongly
4-
Disagree
The typical guest of this hotel has an image similar to how 1
(1
Agree
(2 )
(4
(3)
6)
5,
(71
see myself.
The image of this hotel is consistent with how I see myself.
(1)
The typical guest of this hotel has an image similar to how I

Z,
(1 )
like to see myself.

The image of this hotel is consistent with how I like to see
myself.
believe others seeme.
The image of this hotel is consistent with how I believe
others see me.
would like others to see me.
The image of this hotel is consistent with how I would like
others to see me.
(5)
(3)
(2)
I
(1)
(4)
7)
(6)
(5)
7)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(2)
3)
A)
(5)
( 6)
(6)
(6)
(7 )
(7)
71
I
(1)
(2)
(j)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
7)
(1
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Please tick (V) your agreement or disagreement with each of' the l'ollowing statements
regarding the hotel brand that you selected in section A. Use the scale of' I (.Vlrongj, disagree) to 7
(sfrong4j, agree).
Directions:
Statement
If there is another hotel as good as this hotel, I pref'cr to stay
in this hotel.
I will
recommend this hotel to someone who seeks my
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
I
1
(2)
3)
(4)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5
2'
(3)
(4)
(6)
(5
(6)
(5'1)
(6)
7)
advice.
Next time I will stay in this hotel.
Even if another hotel offers more attractive prices, I will
stay in this hotel.
(111) (2)
I will switch to other hotels if I experience it problem with

this hotel.
(1
I
I
3
I
I
61
4)
(7
00,
-254-
I. Wd by
71
Atsociation
0
MBAs
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
Schoolof Management
GU27XHUK
Guildford,
Surrey
SECTION
C:
Directions:
The following is a list of things that people look for or want from life. Please study the
ABOUT
YOU
list carefully and then tick () each item basedon how important it is in your daily life. Use the
scale of I (vety unimportant) to 7 (veg important).
Personal
Very
Values
Very
10Important
Unimportant
Sense of belonging
05
(8)
(A)
(s)
(0)
05
(t
&
C7j
(3)
(D6
(5,1
(6)
Cl)
Excitement
10
J)
Self-fulfillment
4)
02
10
('4)
C4)

Security
10
02
05
04
Self-respect
10
Ambitious
C4)
(i. e., hard working, aspiring)
Broad-minded (i. e., open minded)

Capable (i. e., competent, effective)
C1)
Cheerful (i. e., lighthearted, joyful)
10
C2)
C3)
(k)
()
(4
'2
C3)
CZ
4",
()
02
3)
Clean (i. e., neat, tidy)
(2)
Courageous (i. e., standing up for your beliefs)

t,
C
(2
Forgiving (i. e., willing to pardon others)
(A)
C5)
T
C6)
(:5)
(6)
C4
03
05
(51)
(6)
(A)
(5)
&
70
03
C4)
C5)
06
C7)
(D7
C1,
Honest (i. e., sincere, truthful)
J)
(2)
()'
(5)
(6)
Imaginative (i. e., daring, creative)
01,
(,,
A)
C5)
C6)
Independent (i. e., self-reliant, self-sufficient)
02
(4-_)
($)
&
10
40
5)
07
Loving (i. e., affectionate, tender)

J)
Obedient (i. e., dutiful, respectful)
L-3)
C)
(5"
(63
(7)
(44)
()
&
C5)
C6)
(7)
C4)
05
&
CI
4')
(5)
-I
Polite (i. e., courteous, well-mannered)
,,
(7)
(i
Logical (i. e., consistent, rational)
14
"
1T
(7
Helpful (i. e., working for the welfare of others)
Intellectual (i. e., intelligent, reflective)
(7)
Responsible (i. e., dependable, reliable)
Self-controlled
Cl')
(i. e., restrained, self-disciplined)
02
(a)
3)
(7D
AV
,
-255 -
A-.
I
&W by
Association
of MBAs
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
Directions:
Please tick (V) the box or provide
the information
that most accurately describes you.
Q1. Gender:
0 Female
Q2. Age Group:
0 16-24
13 35-44
El 55 - 64
0 25 - 34
El 45 - 54
El 65 andover
0 Male
Q3. Nationality: (

1:1 GCSE
0 UndergraduateDegree
0 A-Level
13 PostgraduateDegree
0 GNVQ/NVQ
0 Other: (
Q5. Current Employ Status

D Full-time Employee
11 Retired
El Part-time Employee
11 Housework
0 Self-employee
El Student
0 Unemployed
0 Other: (
Q6. Average annual pre-tax personal income:

0 Lessthan E 10,000
0E 10,000to E 19,999
C1E 20,000to E 29,9 99
EJE 30,000to E 39,999

11E 40,000to E 49,999
EJOver E 50,000
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!
00
-256-
Ama"
71
bY
Assoclatlon
of MBAs
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
*Restaurant Version
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a postgraduate student at the University of Surrey. As part of my PhD research, I am

investigating consumer perception of restaurant brands. You could be of great help if you would
complete following questionnaire.
The questionnaire takes approximately
10 to 15 minutes to complete. The information you
for
be
academic purposes and will remain strictly confidential.
only
used
provide will
Your thoughtful input to the study is greatly appreciatedand will be of substantialvalue to me. if
in
do
hesitate
during
have
the
to ask for
study,
please
not
participation
your
any questions
you
assistance or clarification.
Thank you very much for your time and co-operation
Jang-Hyeon Nam
Guildford, Surrey, GUX 7XH
Tel: +44 (0)7765 436101, Fax: +44 1483 686301
E-mail: j. nam@surrey.ac.uk
-257-
A-OMW bY
7 lof
Association
MBAs
UNIVERSITY
is
OF
SURREY
SECTION
A:
A RESTAURANT
BRAND YOU ARE FAMILIAR
WITH
Directions: The following is a list of restaurant brands which have more than one restaurant in the UK.
Please select one restaurant brand with which you are familiar and tick () the appropriate box. Then
answer the questions that follow based on the restaurant brand that you selected.
Ej
D
Ej
11
Angus Steak House

ASK
Burger King
Beefeater
EI
EI
El
El
Cafd Rouge
Cafe Uno
Chef & Brewer
Chicago Rock Caf6
13 Costa Coffee
El Bella Italia
D Brewers Fayre
El Browns
Cl Caffe Nero
D Other Restaurant Brand
El Frankie & Benny's

11 Garfunkels
0 Harvester
El Harry Ramsden's
El KFC
EJ La Tasca
11 Pizza Hut
El Little Chef
11 McDonald's
D Starbucks
13 Nandos
El Wetherspoon
EJ Rat & Parrot

0
0
El Pizza Express
(Pleasedescribe)
0 Hard Rock Cafe
TGI Friday's
Richoux
Yellow River Caf6
Wimpy
Ql. How long have you been aware of this restaurant brand?
03 to 6 years
06 to 12 months
El Less than I month
El 6 years or more
01 to 3 years
01 to 6 months
Q2. Using the following scale, please identify how familiar you are with this restaurant brand. Please
tick () an appropriate number. Rating I means you are not at all familiar with this restaurant brand and
7 means you are very familiar with this restaurant brand. If you feel your opinion is between these
extremes, please tick () a number in the middle of the scale.
31-:
40
5E]
21:1
1
10
not at all
familiar
60
7 El
very
familiar
Q3. Have you ever visited a restaurant of this brand during the last six months?
El No
El Yes
(if your answer is No, please go to Section B on the next page)
Q4. Approximately,
how many times have you visited a restaurant of this brand during the last six
months? (
Q5. What was the main purpose of your last visit in a restaurant of this brand?
F-I Routine Lunch
0 Business Meal
El Celebrating an Event (Birthday, etc.)
El Other(
11 Family Meal
D Routine Evening Meal
Q6. Overall, how would you evaluate the value of your experience for the price you paid when you
visit a restaurant of this brand?
extremely
bad value
17
20
30
40
50
60
7 El
extremely
good value
Q7. Overall, how wo uld you describe your visit experience at the restaurant of this brand?
30
I r-I
2 F-I
411
50
60
7 El
completely
completely
disSatisfied
satisfied
-258-
Am""
71
by
Association
ofMBAs
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
SECTION
B:
OVERALL
IMAGE
OF THE RESTAURANT
BRAND
THAT YOU
SELECTED IN SECTION A
Please tick () your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements
regarding the overall image of the restaurant brand that you selected in Section A. Use the scale of I
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Directions:
Strongly
Statement
This restaurant has modem-looking
Disagree
C1
equipment.
Strongly
Agree
U2
Employees of this restaurant listen to me.

(3
This restaurant's successes are my successes.

(k)
This restaurant reflects my personal lifestyle.

This restaurant's facilities are visually appealing.
10
Employees of this restaurant are competent in their jobs.
10
(4)
(6)
(7),
40
C6)
C7)
C4)
(76)
(T
06
C7)
(6)
J)
(D3
C2)
Employees of this restaurant seem to anticipate what I want.
(Z
1 am interested in what others think about this restaurant.
CZ
Materials associated with the service (such as menus, furniture)
(2
(5)
3)
C4)
(_5
(43
(5)
(7
(5
C6)
C)
(6'
7)
1
(5)
(3)
(41)
03
C44)
C6)
,6)
(7)
(q-)
J)
are visually appealing at this restaurant.

When someone praises this restaurant, it feels like a personal
compliment.
This restaurant is totally in line with my lifestyle.
This restaurant gives you a visually attractive room.
If I talk about this restaurant, I usually say "we"
"they-"
rather than
D1
C1
(22)
Cq)
(4)
(Di
()
03
(4)
05
10
(2)
C4)
(3)
(1)
C4)
(5D
(j-
C4,11
Employees of this restaurant are helpful.

If a story in the media criticizes
this restaurant, I would feel
L2)
C6)
(7-)
(E)
J)
(5)
06
C7)
(5)
C6)
,5
embarrassed.
J)
This restaurant is clean.

Employees of this restaurant are friendly.
C2)
10
When someone criticizes this restaurant, it feels like a personal
(3D
3
(1)
T
40
C3)
(7
505
insult.
Visiting this restaurant supports my lifestyle.
(2
-259-
(4)
(5,
)
AIMAW
71
Association
of MBAs
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
Please take a moment to think about the overall image of the restaurant brand that you
selected in section A. Consider the kind of person who typically visits this restaurant brand.
Imagine this person in your mind and then describe this person using one or more personal adjectives
such as organized, classy, poor, stylish, friendly, modem, traditional, popular, or whatever personal
Directions:
adjectives you can use. Once you have done this, tick () your agreement or disagreement with each of
the following statements. Use the scale of 1 (strongtv disagree) to 7 (slrongtv agree).
Strongly
Statement
Strongly
4p
Disagree
Agree
The typical guest of this restaurant has an image similar to

how I see myself.
3,
The image of this restaurant is consistent with how I see
(a)
myself.
how I like to see myself.
The image of this restaurant is consistent with how I like to
(j)
(2)
Q31)
(1)
02
03
(2
(3)
see myself.
how I believe others see me.
The image of this restaurant is consistent with how I believe
5
C4,
)
04
(5)
J,
C6)
(6)
(7)
C5)
(0)
(7)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(5)
(0
others see me.

how I would like others to see me.
C1
The image of this restaurant is consistent with how I would

like others to see me.
OD
(Z
(-6)
(A)
(Tj
05
Please tick () your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements
regarding the restaurant brand that you selected in section A. Use the scale of I (strongv disagree) to
7 (sfrongv agree).
Directions:
Statement
If there is another restaurant as good as this restaurant, I
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
I
3,
:
I-
prefer to visit this restaurant.

1 will recommend this restaurant to someone who seeks my
(L4)
(5)
7
(6)
(7)
advice.
Next time I will visit this restaurant.
('-2)
Even if another restaurant offers more attractive prices, 1
(3',
'41)
03
7'
C7)
will visit this restaurant.

I will switch to other restaurants if I experience a problem
with this restaurant.
,;1
(5)
7)
"0
-260-
'Q'0
71of
Al. "&W bV
Association
MBAs
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
SECTION
C:
Directions:
The following
list carefully
ABOUT
YOU
is a list of things that people look for or want from life. Please study the
it is in your daily life. Use the
and then tick () each item based on how important
scale of I (very unimportant) to 7 (veq important).

Personal
Very
Values
Very
Unimportanl
Important
Sense of belonging
Excitement
(-4)
C5)
Self-fulfillment
(:4)
5)
(6)
C7)
T,
02
4)
()
(5)
$)
(1)
Security
(J)
02
03
(4
(!
(6)
()
03
C4)
(5)
(J)
4')
Self-respect
T
C-6)
(4)
C2)
07
Ambitious (i. e., hard working, aspiring)
(6)
(7-)
06
C7)
(6)
)
11,:
(6)
10
OZ
C3)
(4)
Capable (i. e., competent, effective)
Cl)
(k)
(3)
A)
Cheerful (i. e., lighthearted, joyful)
(1)
(:2_)'
(73)
(4)
(k)
(a)
4_)
(55)
(6_) T
(3)
(4,)
C5)
(6)
Broad-minded (i. e., open minded)
Clean (i. e., neat, tidy)
10
Courageous (i. e., standing up for your beliefs)
C51)
C6')
Forgiving (i. e., willing to pardon others)

02
Helpful (i. e., working for the welfare of others)

Honest (i. e., sincere, truthful)
10
(41)
(7)
()
C2)
(4)
4)
(5)
(6)
(6)
_7:;
(?-,)
Imaginative (i. e., daring, creative)
jf)
(2)
C3)
Independent (i. e., self-reliant, self-sufficient)
01
(1
(:4)
(s)
Intellectual (i. e., intelligent, reflective)
Cl)
02
C3)
(4)
(5)
6)
(7)
Logical (i. e., consistent, rational)
(D
02
C3)
(A)
C5)
C6)
(t)
C4,
)
(5',
(7
C2:
)
Loving (i. e., affectionate, tender)

Obedient (i. e., dutiful, respectful)
(7)
Polite (i. e., courteous, well-mannered)
4,)
Responsible (i. e., dependable, reliable)

Self-controlled
OD
(i. e., restrained, self-disciplined)
Cl)
-261
02
3D
(6)
(5)
(7)
40
CLI
(7)
T
71of
ptumwd by
Association
MBAs
UNIVERSITY
OF
SURREY
Directions:
Please tick () the box or provide
Q1. Gender:
Q2. Age Group:
0 Female
the information
that most accurately
describes you.
EJMale
0 16-24
D 35 - 44
El 55 - 64
D 25 - 34
El 45 - 54
0 65 andover
Q3. Nationality: (

El GCSE
[I Undergraduate Degree
El A-Level
El PostgraduateDegree
El Other: (
0 GNVQ/NVQ
Q5. Current Employ Status

0 Full-time Employee
11 Retired
El Part-time Employee
0 Housework
"
0 Student
Self-employee
0 Other: (
" Unemployed
Q6. Average annual pre-tax personal income:

EI E 30,000to E 39,999
El C40,000to E 49,999
11 Over E 50,000
El Lessthan 10,000
JC
El E 10,000to ce19,999
0Q 20,000to E 29,9 99
THANK
YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!
0,
-262-
71of
A.. dWd by
Association
MBAs
JNam, 2008
Appendix B. The Sample of Interview Transcript
APPENDIX
THE SAMPLE OF INTERVIEW
TRANSCRIPT
JNam, 2008
UnIS
Univ"ty
of Surrey
Guitfbrd. Surrey
GU27XH, UK
Tel (44,11483686378
Fax (44) 1483 686301
Af,
Dear sir/Madame
I am Postgraduate student at the University of Surrey. As part of my PhD research, I am

inter-viewing people about their experiences at hotels or restaurants. I am especially
interestedin perceptionsof hotel or restaurantbrands.

This interview takes approximately 30 minutes. If it is okay with you, I will voice record
information
be
The
for
you
provide
will
only
used
academic purposes
conversation.
our
and will remain strictly confidential.
Your thoughtful responses to study's questions are greatly appreciated and will be of
have
during
If
interview,
do
to
the
me.
any
questions
you
value
not
please
substantial
hesitateto ask for clarification.

Thank you very much for your time and co-operation.
Jang-Hyeon Nam
Guildford. Surrey. GUX 7XH
Tel: +44 (0)1483 682117 (0)7765436101
E-mail: J.Nam(isurrey. ac.uk
-264-
JNam, 2008
INTERVIEW
Name: Roger Dudik
Gender: Male
Age: 62
Nationality: British
Occupation: Writer/Semi-Retired
Data of Interview: 09.20.07
I would like to start by having you describe your most enjoyable experience at a hotel or
hotel
have
did
Recently,
experience
at
enjoyable
a
or restaurant?
any
you
restaurant.
Yes, I have.
Which hotel or restaurant
brand?
It is a Travelodge.
When did you have an enjoyable experience at Travelodge?
August 29,30,31 and September6 and 7,2007
How long have you known this brand?
Over ten years
How many times have you visited this brand over the last two years?
About fifteen times
Can you tell me more about your experience? What happened there?
My requirements for I night stays are relatively simple such as clean, comfortable,
convenience in room, courteous staff, quiet location and reasonablerates. For an extended stay,
but
do
different,
I
be
not travel that way. Recently I stayed 5 separatenights
requirement may
in 5 different Travelodge locations. They all met the above criteria. One in the particular in
-265 -
JNam. 2008
Apj2endixB. TheSampleofInterview Transcr!2
INTERVIEW
Name: RogerDudik
Gender: Male
Age: 62
Nationality: British
Occupation: Writer/Semi-Retired
Data of Interview: 09.20.07
I would like to start by having you describe your most enjoyable experience at a hotel or
restaurant. Recently, did you have any enjoyable experience at a hotel or restaurant?
Yes,I have.
Which hotel or restaurant brand?
It is a Travelodge.
When did you have an enjoyable experience at Travelodge?
August 29,30,31 and Septernbcr6 and 7,2007
How long have you known this brand?
Over ten years
How many times have you visited this brand over the last two years?
About fifteen times

My requirements for I night stays are relatively simple such as clean, comfortable,
conveniencein room, courteousstaff, quiet locationandreasonablerates.For an extendedstay,
but
do
different,
I
be
may
not travel that way. RecentlyI stayed5 separatenights
requirement
in 5 different Travelodgelocations.They all met the abovecriteria. One in the particular in
-265-
JNa7n. 2008
B. TheSampleofInterview Transcrip
Apj2endbc
Sunbury seemedto take extra care with first-rate comfortable furnishings and courteous
On
last
locations.
did
book
I
Travelodge
this
trip,
their
since
of
all
not
service.
publishesa
know from day-to-daywhereI would be,the bookallowedme to call a few hoursaheadto fine
locations
Moreover,
innumerable
Their
are
an
attraction.
convenient
accommodation.
Travelodgeis not, in somelocations,the mosteconomical,in others,very economical.
How likely is it that you would recommend this brand to your friends?
Overall, Iwould recommendthis brand,not highly recommend,but recommendon the basis

that this brandis likely to provideacceptableaccommodations.
How likely is it that you would visit this brand at the next opportunity?
Under similar circumstance,I would visit.

If another brand offers a more attractive price or a discount, will you change where you
stay on your next opportunity?
Dependingon the circumstances,and the opportunityto inspect or experiment,a discount

might induceme to try somethingelse,a similar chain. But I would not do so unlessI knew
that Travelodgefacility is nearbyasa backup.Travelodgeis a known quantity.The discountor
few
be
induce
have
A
significant.
pounds
would
not
no
me to take a risk.
would
attractiveprice
If you experience a problem with this brand, what will you do?
Immediateproblemswould be handledwith inquiry at the receptiondesk. Major or overall

suggestionswould prompt communicationwith national managementvia email or postal
service.
Now I would like you to describe your most unenjoyable experience at a hotel or
restaurant? Recently did you have any unenjoyable experience at a hotel or restaurant?
Yes,I went to a local kebabshopfor somecarryout.

Which restaurant brand?
-266-
JNam. 2008
Apj2endixB. TheSampleofInterview Transcr!:

p
It is a Shahi Kebab House in Birmingham.

When did you have an unenjoyable experience at Shahi Kebab House?
Two months ago.
How long have you known this restaurant brand?
Justsix months.
How many times have you visited this brand over the last six months?
Justonce
The final food productwas poorly prepared,very closeto being inedible, and their pricesare
high becausethey promotethe quality of their food in local newspaper.But it is bad quality
high
price.
and
How likely is it that you would recommend this brand to your friends?
I will not.
How likely is it that you would visit this brand at the next opportunity?
In spiteof their offering me anothermeal I vAll not return,ever.

From your point-of-view, how would you describe brand loyalty?
Brand loyalty is that customerscome back every time. Brand loyalty is earnedthrough
is
Loyalty
that
earnedwill supersedeconsiderationsof cost.
consistentquality and service.
Loyalty doesnot considerother options becauseexperiencehas removedrisk and unknown
eventualities.
What makes brand loyalty to a hotel or restaurant?
-267-
JNam, 2008
ApjZendixB. TheSampleofInterview Transcr2
It would be goodquality andprice. Staff shouldclearly know what I want and providepersonal
loyalty.
become
Any brandsI may be loyal to arcthe
is
Price
alsoreasonwhy people
attention.
result of consistent,provenquality, reliableserviceandreasonableprice. However,price is not
high
important
quality.
as
consistently
as
Can you tell me about your lifestyle?
I like convenient and simple life. I am a moderate person, careful with finances, but not stingy.
I live in a moderate house and drive moderate automobiles. I am not a joiner or superficially
improve
individual
I
I
my
which
capabilities.
revere
pursuits
social. am semi-retired and enjoy
hard work, traditional values, and rewards for value. I am a champion of capitalism and believe
the market place is the arbiter of success.I am fairly well educated and uninterested in outward
appearances.Function and value are signif icant guides.
De you use specific brands to express your lifestyle?
Some
Can you tell me more about that?
It is a Eurostar.The reasonwhy I like Eurostaris becauseof convenienceand simple.It is not
busy.And train travel is betterenvironmentthan flying.
Do you think how well a brand fits with your lifestyle influences your future purchase
intentions?
Yes,I think so
Why do you think so?
Travelodge is good quality, reasonable price and acceptable accommodation. It is two star
hotel and very basic. I like just simple one. So I want to stay at Travelodge. Because it is
simple, that is the point.
Do you feel strong ties with any brand?
-268-
JNam. 2008
Appendix B. TheSampleofInterview Transcrip
Some
Which brand? Why?
Citizen Watch, Sony Electronics, and Hewlett Packard Printer. These brands provide
outstandingquality from my experienceand usually value which is only partially associated
I
initial
Longevity
to
make
adjustments
am
and
and
willingness
repair
are
essential.
price.
with
brands.
these
about
experience
sureof my positive
If someone criticizes a brand that you feel strong ties with, how do you feel?
My feeling is not good. My choicesare basedon positive personalexperiences.If a brand

disappointsme, I will find a substitute.If someonecriticizes a brand I like, I will encourage
that individual to seekappropriateadjustmentfor an unfortunateor dissatisfyingexperience.
But, I will not be overly persuasive.
Do you think feeling strong ties with a brand influences your future purchase intention?
For somethings that have proven reliable and for somecompaniesthat have provenquality
influential.
brands
their
are
andcustomerservice,
From your point-of-view, how would you describe quality for a hotel or restaurant?
I think that physical quality concernsthe material propertiesof the product as well as the
how
Service
in
the staff caresfor the customerand
quality
concerns
execution preparation.
how seriously the staff wishes the customerto return. The hotel or restaurantattempt to
for
the
thoseneeds.In the caseof the restaurant,the
and
provide
customer's
needs
anticipate
be
better
ingredients
than what can be normally purchasedin a store,the
the
should
quality of
individualized
be
and served appropriately and the service should be
should
preparation
courteous.
Do you think that your perceived quality influences your future purchase intentions?
Absolutely, it is quite important. If the criteria for quality are apparent,then the choice is
simple.
-269-
JNam, 2008
Apj2endixB. TheSampleofInterview Transcrip
You mentioned that you have had an enjoyable experience with Travelodge and
Travelodge's
Can
image and
Kebab
House.
tell
Shahi
about
you
me
unenjoyable with
Shahi Kebab House's image?
My first experienceat Travelodgewas an accident,but provedto be indicative of their quality.

Travelodge'simage is simple, clean and reasonableprice. Every Travelodgeyou go will be
image
Shahi
Kebab
House.ShahiKebabHousetouts
know
I
the
of
nothing about
very same.
do
know
local
I
from
not
newspapers.
what othersthink, nor do
a numberof
recommendations
I care.
Can you tell me about your self-image?
I am unassuming, confident, opinionated, rationally generous, and relatively successful in
do
I
life.
do
I
the
of
others,
nor
approval
pay much attention to their
not
need
areas
of
some
disapproval of superficial matters. I do care if I somehow unintentionally threat another person
inappropriately. I have a strong senseof justice and fairness, and have no patience for actions
that impair either. I have no problem admitting mistakes.
Do you think how well a brand image rits with your self-image influences your future
purchaseintentions?
Maybe, if you think that you are very up-marketyourself, you will go up-marketrestaurants
andhotels.
People look for important things in their daily life. For example, some people think that
loving is most important, or other people think that security is most important. In your
case,what is the most important thing in your daily life?
Most important is peace,quiet, simple, lack of conflict, also,justice, fairness,intelligence,

rationality.However,despiteseekingpeaceand quiet, I will not hesitateto confront any threat
to me or my family or any injustice visited upon me or those for whom I care. I will not
toleratecoercionof any kind, from anyone.
Why do you think so?
I wish to live my life as I see fit without interference from anyone as long as I do not interfere
-270-
JAram, 2008
Apj2endixB. TheSampleof Interview Transcript
with anyone.
Do you think that these such as peace, quiet, simple, lack of conflict, justice, fairness,
intelligence, rationality influence your perception and behaviour?
They absolutelyare guides for how I conductmyself, including my spendinghabits. I make

fair trades.I am not coercedby advertising,socialpressure,or political propaganda.
Right and
wrong will still very clearconceptfor me, althoughthey areno alwaysabsolute.
Do you think that these such as peace, quite, simple, lack of conflict, justice, fairness,
intelligence, rationality influence your future purchase intentions?
Of course
-271-
REFERENCES
References
JNam. 2008
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name, New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D.A. and Biehl, A. (1993), Brand Equity and Advertising, Reading: Addison
Wesley.
Aaker, D.A. and Jacobson,R. (1994), The Financial Information Content of Perceived
Quality, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol.31(2), pp. 191-201.
Aaker, D.A. (1994), Building a Brand: the Saturn Story, California Management Review,
Vol.36(2), pp.114.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets, California
Management Review, Vol.38(3), pp.102-120.
Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V. and Day, GS. (2004), Marketing Research, New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Abrams, P. (1982), Historical Sociology, New York: Comell University Press.
Adcock, D., Halborg, A. and Ross,C. (2001), Marketing: Principles and Practice, Essex:
Financial Times PrenticeHall.
Adler, P. and Adler, P.A. (1987), Role Conflict and Identity Salience:College Athletics and
the Academic Role, Social ScienceJournal, Vol.24(4), pp.443-455.
Agarwal, M. K. and Rao, V. R. (1996), An Empirical Comparison of Consumer-Based
Measuresof Brand Equity, Marketing Letters, Vol.7(3), pp. 237-247.
Al-Sabbahy, H.Z., Ekinci, Y. and Riley, M. (2004), An Investigation of Perceived Value
Dimensions:Implications for Hospitality Research,Journal of Travel Research, Vol.42(3),
pp.226-234.
Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1996), Brand DevelopmentVersusNew Product Development:
Towards a ProcessModel of Extension Decisions, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
Vol. 14(7),pp. 10-19.
American Marketing Association (1960), Marketing Definitions:
Marketing Terms, Chicago:American Marketing Association.
-273-
A Glossary of
ReLerences
JNam, 2008
Amine, A. (1998), Consumers' True Brand Loyalty: The Central Role of Commitment,
Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol.6(4), pp.305-319.
Market
Customer
Satisfaction,
(1994),
D.
R.
Lehmann,
C.
W.,
Fornell,
E.
Anderson,
and
53Vol.
58(3),
Marketing,
Journal
Sweden,
from
pp.
Findings
of
Share,and Profitability:
66.
in
Customer
Value
Assessment
K.
(1993),
P.
Chintagunta,
C.
Jain,
D.
Anderson, J.C.,
and
BusinessMarkets: A State-of-PracticeStudy,Journal of Business-to-BusinessMarketing,
Vol. l(l), pp.3-29.
Customer
Indicators
Reputation
Loyalty
W.
(1994),
Satisfaction,
T.
of
Andreassen,
and
as
Orientation in the Public Sector, International Journal of Public Sector Management,
Vol.7(2), pp. 16-34.
Arnold, D. (1992), The Handbook of Brand Management, Reading:Addison Wesley.
Assael, H. (1998), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Ohio: South-Westem
College Publishing.
Sector
Sector:
(2005),
Hospitality
Services
Advisory
Careers
Graduate
Association of
Brierings 2005, Sheffield: AGCAS.
Auh, S., Court-Salisbury, L. and Johnson, M. (2003), Order Effects in Customer
SatisfactionModeling, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19(3/4), pp.379-400.
Aydin, S. and Ozer, G (2005), The Analysis of Antecedentsof Customer Loyalty in the
Turkish Mobile TelecommunicationMarket, European Journal of Marketing, V01.39(7/8),
pp.910-925.
Babakus,E. and Boller, GW. (1992), An Empirical Assessmentof the SERVQUAL scale,
Journal of BusinessResearch,V61.24(3),pp.253-268.
k
Backman, S.J. and Crompton, L. (1991), Differentiating between High, Spurious, Latent,
in
Two
Recreation
Leisure
Activities,
Journal
Park
Loyalty
Participants
Low
and
of
and
Administration, Vol.9(2), pp.1-17.
Back, K. J. and Parks, S.C. (2003), A Brand Loyalty Model Involving Cognitive, Affective,
Customer
Hospitality
Satisfaction,
Journal
Loyalty
Brand
Conative
and
of
and
and
Tourism Research,Vol.27(4), pp.419-435.
-274-
References
JNam, 2008
in
Customers'
Brand
Loyalty
Congruence
the
Image
Effects
The
K.
J.
(2005),
on
Back,
of
Upper Middle-Class Hotel Industry, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
Vol.29(4), pp.448-467.
Bailey, R. and Ball, S. (2006), An Exploration of the Meanings of Hotel Brand Equity, The
Service Industries Journal, Vol.26(l), pp.22-34.
Baker, D.A. and Crompton, JI. (2000), Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.27(3), pp.785-804.
Baker, M. J. (2003), The Marketing Book, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Baldinger, A. L. and Rubinson, J. (1996), Brand Loyalty: The Link between Attitude and
Behavior, Journal of Advertising Research,Vol.36(2), pp.22-34.
Baldinger, A. L. and Rubinson, J. (1997), In Searchof the Holy Grail: A Rejoinder,Journal
18-20.
37(l),
Vol.
Research,
Advertising
pp.
of
Bamert, T. and Wehrli, H.P. (2005), Service Quality as an Important Dimension of Brand
Equity in Swiss ServicesIndustries,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15(2), pp.132-141.
Bandyopadhyay,S. and Martell, M. (2007), Does Attitudinal Loyalty Influence Behavioral
Loyalty? A Theoretical and Empirical Study,Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 14(l), pp.35-44.
Baron, R.A. and Byrne, D. (2002), Social Psychology, London: Allyn and Bacon.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in
Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.51(6), pp. 1173-1182.
Barsky,J. (1994), World-Class Customer Satisfaction, IL: Irwin ProfessionalPublishing.
Bass, F.M. (1974), The Theory of StochasticPreferenceand Brand Switching, Journal of
Marketing Research,Vol. I1 (1), pp.1-20.
Bauer, R.A. (1960), Consumer Behaviour as Risk-Taking: Dynamic Marketing for a
Changing World, Chicago:American Marketing Association.
Bearden,W.O. and Neterneyer,R.G (1999), Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-Item
Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research, California: Sega
Publications.
-275-
References
JNam, 2008
Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L. R., Homer, P. and Misra, S. (1985), Alternative Measurement
Approaches to Consumer Values: The List of Values and the Rokeach Value Survey,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol.2(3), pp.181-200.
Beatty, S.E. and Kahle, L. R. (1988), Alternative Hierarchies of the Attitude-Behavior
Relationship: The Impact of Brand Commitment and Habit, Journal of Academic
Marketing Science,Vol. 16(2), pp.1-10.
Belch, GE. and Landon, E.L. (1977), Discriminant Validity of a Product-Anchored SelfConceptMeasure,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 14(2), pp.252-256.
Belch, G. E. (1978), Belief Systems and the Differential Role of the Self-Concept,
Advances in Consumer Research,V61.5,pp.320-325.
Bellenger, D.N., Steinberg,E. and Stanton,W.W. (1976), The Congruenceof Store Image
and Self Image,Journal of Retailing, Vol.52(l), pp.17-32.
Bennett,P.D. and Kassarjian,H.H. (1972), Consumer Behavior, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
Bennett,R. andRundle-Thiele,S. (2002),MeasuringAttitudinal BrandLoyalty,Journal of

Brand Management,Vol.9(3),pp.193-209.
Berry, L. L. (1980), ServicesMarketing is Different, Business,Vol.30(3), pp.24-29.
Berry, L. L. (2000), Cultivating Service Brand Equity, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science,Vol.28(l), pp. 128-137.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), Symbolic and Functional Positioning of Brands, Journal
1
Vol.
5(l), pp.32-43.
Marketing,
Consumer
of
Bhattacharya, B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M. A. (1995), Understanding the Bond of
Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlatesamong Art Museum Members,Journal of
Marketing, Vol.59(4), pp. 46-57.
Bharadwaj, S.G, Vanradarajan, P.R. and Fahy, J. (1993), Sustainable Competitive
Advantage in Service Industries: A ConceptualModel and ResearchPropositions,Journal
of Marketing, Vol.57(4), pp.83-99.
Biong, H. (1993), Satisfaction and Loyalty to Suppliers Within the Grocery Trade,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol.27(7), pp.21-38.
-276-
References
JNam. 2008
Birdwell, A. E. (1968), A Study of the Influence of Image Congruenceon ConsumerChoice,

Journal of Business,Vol.41(I), pp.76-88.
Bitner, M. J. and Hubbert, A. R. (1994), Encounter Satisfaction Versus Overall
Satisfaction Versus Quality, In Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice,
Edited by Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L., London: Sage,pp.72-94.
Blackston, M. (1995), The Qualitative Dimension of Brand Equity, Journal of Advertising
Research,Vol.35(4), pp-2-7.
Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W. and Engel, J.F. (2006), Consumer Behavior, OH: Thomson
Higher Education.
Blattberg, R.C. and Sen, S.K. (1974), Market Segmentation Using Models of
Multidimensional PurchasingBehavior,Journal of Marketing, Vol.38(4), pp.20-28.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2005), Business Research Methods,
Maidenhead:McGraw-Hill Education.
Bojanic, D.C. (1996), ConsumerPerceptionsof Price, Value and Satisfaction in the Hotel
Industry: An Exploratory Study,Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol.4(l),
pp.5-22.
Bloemer, J. and Kasper, H.D.P. (1995), The Complex Relationship between Consumer
Satisfactionand Brand loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16(2),pp.311-329.
Bloemer, J., Dc Ruyter, K. and Wetzels,M. (1999), Linking Perceived Service Quality and
Service Loyalty: A Multi-Dimensional Perspective, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol.33(11/12),pp.1082-1106.
Bloemer, J. and De Ruyter, K. (1998), On the relationship between Store Image, Store
Satisfactionand StoreLoyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.32(5/6),pp.499-513.
Bloemer, J. and De Ruyter, K. (1998), Investigating Drivers of Bank Loyalty: The Complex
Relationship between Image, Service Quality and Satisfaction, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 16(6/7),pp.276-286.
Bloemer, J. and Dekker, D. (2007), Effects of Personal Values on Customer Satisfaction,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.25(5), pp.276-291.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), A Multistage Model of Customers' Assessmentsof
ServiceQuality andValue, Journal of Consumer research, Vol. 17(4), pp.375-384.
-277-
..
Nam. 2008
References
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), A Dynamic ProcessModel
of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions, Journal of Marketing
Research,Vol.30(l), pp.7-27.
Bournan,M. and Van Der Wiele, T. (1992), Measuring Service Quality in the Car Service
Industry: Building and Testing an Instrument, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol.3(4), pp.4-16.
Bowen, J.T. and Shoemaker,S. (1998), Loyalty: A Strategic Commitment, Cornell Hotel
Vol.
39(l),
12-25.
Quarterly,
Restaurant
Administration
pp.
and
Bowen, J.T. and Chen, S.L. (2001), The Relationship between Customer Loyalty and
Journal of Contemporary
Customer Satisfaction, International
Hospitality
Management, Vol. 13(5), pp.213-217.
Brace, N., Kemp, R. and Snelgar, R. (2006), SPSS for Psychologist: A Guide to Data
Analysis Using SPSSfor Windows, London: Palgrave.
Brassington,F. and Pettitt, S. (2003), Principles of Marketing, Harlow: Financial Times
PrenticeHall.
Brennan,M., Hoek, J. and Astridge, C. (1991), The Effects of Monetary Incentives on the
ResponseRate and Cost-Effectivenessof a Mail Survey,Journal of the Market Research
Society, Vol.33(3), pp.229-241.
Brennan,M. (1992), The Effect of a Monetary Incentive on Mail Survey ResponseRates:
New Data, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol.34(2), pp. 173-177.
British Hospitality Association (2007), British Hospitality:
London: British Hospitality Association.
Trends and Statistics,
Brown, G. H. (1952), Brand Loyalty: Fact or Fiction, Advertising Age, Vol.23(l), pp.53-55.
Brown, T.J., Churchill, GA. and Peter,J.P. (1993), Improving the Measurementof Service
Quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol.69(l), pp. 127-139.
Brunso, K., Scholderer,J. and Grumert,k. C! (2004), Closing the Gap between Values and
Behavior -A Means-End Theory of Lifestyle, Journal of Business Research, Vol.57(6),
pp.665-670
Bums, A. C. and Bush, R.F. (2006), Marketing Research, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice
Hall.
-278-
References
JNam. 2008
Buttle, F. (1994), Hotel and Food Service Marketing, London: Cassell.

Buttle, F. (1996), SERVQUAL: Review, Critique, ResearchAgenda, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol.30(l), pp.8-32.
Byrnes, J.C. (1964), Consumer Intentions to Buy, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol.4(3), pp.49-51.
Caldow, D. (1998), The Relational Elements of Service Loyalty: An Exploratory Study,
Australia and New ZealandMarketing Academy Conference,pp.270-276.
Carman, J.M. (1990), Consumer Perceptionsof Service Quality: An Assessmentof the
SERVQUAL Dimension, Journal of Retailing, Vol.66(l), pp.33-35.
Cetron, M. J., DeMicco, F. and Davies, 0. (2006), Hospitality
Hospitality and Travel, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
2010: The Future of
Chen, C.F. and Chang, Y.Y. (2008), Airline Brand Equity, Brand Preference,and Purchase
Intentions - The Moderating Effects of Switching Costs, Journal of Air Transport
Management, Vol. 14(l), pp.40-42.
Chisnall, P.M. (1997), Marketing Research,London: McGraw-Hill.
Chon, K. S. (1990), Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in Tourism as related to
Destination Image Perception, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Tech University at
Blacksburg.
Chon, K. S. (1992), Self-Image/Destination Image Congruity, Annals of Tourism Research,
V61.29(2),pp.360-362.
Chryssohoidis, G M. and Krystallis, A. (2005), Organic Consumers' Personal Values
Research:Testing and Validating the List of Values(LOV) Scaleand Implementing a ValuebasedSegmentationTask, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 16(7), pp.585-599.
Churchill, GA. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 16(l), pp.64-73.
Churchill, GA. and Surprenant, C. (1982), An Investigation into the Determinants of
CustomerSatisfaction,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 19(4), pp. 491-504.
Churchill, GA. and Iacobucci, D. (2004), Marketing
Foundations, London: Thomson Learning.
-279-
Research: Methodological
..
Nam. 2008
References
Churchill, GA. and Brown, T.J. (2004), Basic Marketing Research, London: Thomson
Learning.
Clark, M. A. and Wood, R.C. (1998), Consumer Loyalty in the Restaurant Industry- A
Preliminary Exploration of the Issues, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 10(4),pp.139-144.
Clarke, A. and Chen, W. (2007), International Hospitality Management: Concepts and
Cases,London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Clawson, C.J. and Vinson, D.E. (1978), Human Values: A Historical and
Interdisciplinary Analysis, In Contributionsto ConsumerResearch,Edited by Hunt, H.K.,
Chicago:Association for ConsumerResearch,pp. 396-402.
Cobb-Walgren,C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), Brand Equity, Brand Preference,
and PurchaseIntent, Journal of Advertising, Vol.24(3), pp.25-40.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for
the Behavioral Sciences,New Jersey:ErIbaurnAssociates.
Colombo, R.A. and Morrison, D.G (1989), A Brand Switching Model with Implications for
Marketing Strategies,Marketing Science,V61.8(1),pp.89-99.
Cooil, B., Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L. and Hsu, M. (2007), A Longitudinal Analysis of
Customer Satisfaction and Share of Wallet: Investigating the Moderating Effect of
CustomerCharacteristics,Journal of Marketing, Vol.71(l), pp.67-83.
Copeland, M. T. (1923), Relation of Consumer's Buying Habits to Marketing Methods,
Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 1(3), pp.282-289.
Coulson, J.S. (1966), Buying Decisions within the Family and the Consumer-Brand
Relationship, In On Knowing the Consumer,Edited by Newman, J.W., New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Cravens,D.W. (2003), Strategic Marketing, Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Cravens,D. W. and PiercYlNA (2006), Strategic Marketing, London: McGraw-Hill.
Crocker, L. and Algina, J. (1986), Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory,
London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
-280-
JNam, 2008
References
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring Service Quality: A Reexaminationand
Extension,Journal of Marketing, Vol.56(3), pp.55-68.
Cronin, LL and Taylor, S.A. (1994), SERVPERF vs. SERVQUAL: Reconciling
Measurementof Service Quality,
PerformanceBased and Perceptions-Minus-Expectations
Journal of Marketing, Vol.58(l), pp.125-131.
Cronin, Jj., Brady, M. K. and Hult, G. T.M. (2000), Assessingthe Effects of Quality, Value
and Customer Satisfaction on Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments, Journal of
Retailing, Vol.76(2), pp.193-216.
Crosby, L. A., Bitner, M. J. and Gill, J.D. (1990), Organizational Structure of Values,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 20(2), pp. 123-134.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, New York:
American Library.
Crotty, M. (1998), The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process,London: Sage.
Cunningham,R.M. (1956), Brand Loyalty - What, Where, How Much?, Harvard Business
Review, Vol.34(l), pp.116-128.
Davis, F.B. (1964), Educational Measurements and Their Interpretation, Belmont:
Wadsworth.
Day, G.S. (1969), A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand LoYalty, Journal of Advertising
Research,Vol.9(3), pp.29-35.
De Chernatony,L. and Riley, F.D. (1998), Defining a "Brand": Beyond the Literature with
Experts' Interpretations,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14(5), pp.417-443.
Dekimpe, M. G, Steenkamp,J.B.E.M., Mellens, M. and Abeele, P.V. (1997), Decline and
Variability in Brand loyalty, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14(5),
I
pp.405-420.
Del Rio, A. B., Vazquez,R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), The Effects of Brand Associations on
ConsumerResponse,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18(5), pp.410-425.
Delozier, M. W. (1971), A Longitudinal Study of the Relationship between Self-Image
and Brand Image, UnpublishedPh.D. Thesis,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
-281-
JNam, 2008
ReLerences
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992),MeasuringServiceQuality: A Reexamination

and
Extension,Journal of Marketing, Vol.56(3),pp.55-68.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), SERVPERF vs. SERVQUAL: Reconciling
PerformanceBased and Perceptions-Minus-ExpectationsMeasurementof Service Quality,
Cronin, Jj., Brady, M. K. and Hult, G. T.M. (2000), Assessingthe Effects of Quality, Value
in
Intentions
Service Environments, Journal of
Customer
Satisfaction
Behavioral
and
on
Retailing, Vol.76(2), pp. 193-216.
Crosby, L. A., Bitner, M. J. and Gill, J.D. (1990), Organizational Structure of Values,
Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol.20(2), pp.123-134.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, New York:
American Library.
Crotty, M. (1998), The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process,London: Sage.
R.M. (1956),BrandLoyalty- What,Where,How Much?,Harvard Business

Cunningham,
Review,Vol.34(l), pp.116-128.
Davis, F.B. (1964), Educational Measurements and Their Interpretation, Belmont:
Wadsworth.
Day, GS. (1969), A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Advertising
De Chematony,L. and Riley, F.D. (1998), Defining a "Brand": Beyond the Literature with
Experts' Interpretations,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14(5), pp.417-443.
Dekimpe, M. G, Steenkamp,J.B.E.M., Mellens, M. and Abeele, P.V. (1997), Decline and
Variability in Brand loyalty, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14(5),
I
pp.405-420.
Del Rio, A. B., Vazquez,R. and Iglesias, V, (2001), The Effects of Brand Associations on
ConsumerResponse,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18(5), pp.410-425.
Delozier, M. W. (1971), A Longitudinal Study of the Relationship between Self-Image
and Brand Image, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,University of North Carolina at ChapelHill.
-281-
References
JNam, 2008
Delozier, M. W. and Tillman, R. (1972), Self Image Concepts- Can They be Usedto Design
Marketing Programs?,Southern Journal of Business,Vol.7(l), pp.9-15.
De Ruyter, J.K., Wetzels, M., Lemmink, J. and Mattson, J. (1997), The Dynamics of the
ServiceDelivery Process:A Value-BasedApproach, International Journal of Researchin
Marketing, Vol. 14(3), pp.231-243.
Deshpande,R., Hoyer, W.D. and Donthu, N. (1986), The Intensity of Ethnic Affiliation: A
Study of the Sociology of Hispanic Consumption, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 13(2),pp.214-220.
Dibley, A. and Baker, S. (2001), Uncovering the Links betweenBrand Choice and Personal
ValuesamongYoung British and SpanishGirls, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, VOI.l(l),
pp.77-93.
Dick, A. S. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual
Framework,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol.22(2), pp.99-113.
Dimitriades, Z. S. (2006), Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty and Commitment in Service
Organizations: Some Evidence from Greece, Management Research News, Vol.29(12),
pp.782-800.
Dittmer, P.R. (2002), Dimensions of the Hospitality Industry, New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K. B. and Grewal, D. (1991), Effects of Price, Brand, and Store
Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.28(3),
pp.307-319.
Dolich, I.J. (1969), CongruenceRelationships between Self Images and Product Brands,
Journal of Marketing Research,Vol.6(l), pp.80-84.
Doyle, P.(1994), Marketing Management and Strategy, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
Duman, T. and Mattila, A. S. (2003), The Role of Affective Factors on Perceived Cruise
VacationValue, Tourism Management, Vol.26(3), pp.311-323.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), Organizational Imagesand Member
Identification, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol.39(2), pp.239-263.
Dyson, P., Farr, A. and Hollis, N. S. (1996), Understanding,Measuring, and Using Brand
Equity, Journal of Advertising Research,Vol.36(6), pp.9-21.
-282-
..
Nam, 2008
---
&elierences
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, TX: Harcourt Brace
JovanovichCollege Publishers.
East, R. (1997), Consumer Behavior: Advances and Applications in Marketing,
London: PrenticeHall.
Ehrenberg,A. S.C., Goodhardt, GJ. and Barwise, T.P. (1990), Double JeopardyRevisited,
Journal of Marketing, Vol.54(3), pp.82-91.
Eggert, A. and Ulaga, W. (2002), CustomerPerceivedValue: A Substitutefor Satisfactionin
BusinessMarkets?, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17(2/3), pp.107118.
Ekinci, Y., Riley, M. and Fife-Schaw, C. (1998), Which School of Thought? The
Dimensionsof Resort Hotel Quality, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 10(2/3),pp.63-67.
Ekinci, Y. (2001), The Validation of the Generic Service Quality Dimensions: An
Alternative Approach, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol.8(6), pp.311-324.
Ekinci, Y. and Riley, M. (2003), An Investigation of Self-Concept: Actual and Ideal Self.
CongruenceCompared in the Context of Service Evaluation, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services,Vol. 10(4), pp.201-214.
Ekinci, Y. and Hosany, S. (2006), Destination Personality: An Application of Brand
Personalityto Tourism Destinations,Journal of Travel Research, Vol.45(2), pp.127-139.
Ekinci, Y., Dawes, P. and Massey, G (2008), A Model of Consumer Satisfaction for
Services,European Journal of Marketing, Vol.42(l), pp.35-68.
Elrod, T. (1988), A ManagementScienceAssessmentof a Behavioral Measure of Brand
Loyalty, Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 15(l), pp.481-486.
Engel, J.F. and Blackwell, R.D. (1982), Consumer Behavior, New York: Hult, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1990), Consumer Behavior and
Marketing Strategy, Chicago: Dryden Press.
Evans,M., Jarnal,A. and Foxall, G (2006), Consumer Behaviour, Chichester:John Wiley.
-283-
JNam. 2008
ReLerences
Farley,J.U. (1964), Brand Loyalty and The Economicsof Information, Journal of Business,
Vo1.37(4), pp.370-381.
Farquhar,P.H. (1989), Managing Brand Equity, Marketing Research, Vol. 1(3),pp.24-33.
Up:
Grows
be
When
It
Want
Your
Brand
You
Do
to
What
(1997),
N.
Hollis,
A.
Farr, and
Big and Strong?,Journal of Advertising Research,Vol.37(6), pp.23-36.
Feather,N. T. (1975), Values in Education and Society, New York: Free Press.
Ferreira, R.R. (1996), The Effect of Private Club Members' Characteristics on the
4(3),
Vol.
Leisure
Marketing,
Hospitality
Journal
Members,
Level
Identification
and
of
of
pp.41-62.
Fill, C. (2006), Marketing Communications: Engagements, Strategies and Practice,
Harlow: Financial Times PrenticeHall.
Fisher, R.J. and Wakefield, K. (1998), Factors Leading to Group Identification: A Field
Study of Winnersand Losers,Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 15(l), pp.23-40.
Fleming, M. C. and Nellis, J.G. (1991), The Essence of Statistics for Business, London:
Prentice Hall.
Fornell, C. (1992), A National CustomerSatisfactionBarometer: The SwedishExperience,

Forriell, C., Johnson,M. D., Anderson,EX, Cha, J. and Bryant, BE (1996), The American
Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings, Journal of Marketing,
Vol.60(4), pp.7-18.
Foxall, G, Goldsmith, R. and Brown, S. (1998), Consumer Psychology for Marketing,
London: InternationalThomsonBusinessPress.
Fournier, S. and Yao, J.L. (1997), Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualizationwithin
the Framework of Consumer-BrandRelationships,International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 14(5), pp.451-472.
Fournier, S. (1998), Consumer and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
ConsumerResearch,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24(4), pp.343-373.
Francois,P. and MacLachlan, D.L. (1995), Ecological Validation of Alternative ConsumerBased Brand Strength Measures, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 12(4),pp.321-332.
-284-
References
JNam. 2008
Journal
Business,
The
Process,
Probability
Choice
Brand
(1962),
of
E.
Frank, R.
as a
Vol.35(l), pp.43-56.
Frank, R.E., Massy, W. and Lodahl, T.M. (1969), Purchasing Behavior and Personal
Attributes, Journal of Advertising Research,Vol.9(4), pp. 15-24.
Gale, B.T. (1994), Managing Customer Value, New York: The Free Press.
Garvin, D.A. (1983), Quality on the Line, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol.61(5), pp.65-73.
Getty,J.M. and Thompson,K.N. (1994),The RelationshipbetweenQuality, Satisfaction,

Leisure
Journal
Hospitality
in
Decisions,
Lodging
Behavior
Recommending
and
of
and
Marketing, Vol.2(3),pp.3-22.
Giese, J.L. and Cote, LA. (2000), Defining Customer Satisfaction, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing ScienceReview, No. 1, pp.1-34.
Gilbert, D. (1999), Retail Marketing Management, Harlow: Financial Times PrenticeHall.
Gilbert, GR. and Veloutsou, C. (2006), A Cross-Industry Comparison of Customer
Satisfaction, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20(5), pp. 298-308.
Goldsmith, E.R., Freiden, J. and Henderson,K. V. (1997), The Impact of Social Valueson
Food-RelatedAttitudes, British Food Journal, Vol.99(9), pp.352-357.
Gounaris, S. and Stathakopoulos,V. (2004), Antecedents and Consequencesof Brand
Loyalty: An Empirical Study,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11(4),pp.283-306.
Graeff, T.R. (1996), Using Promotional Messagesto Managethe Effects of Brand and Selfimage on Brand Evaluation, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13(3), pp.2-18.
Green,P.E., Maheshwari,A. and Rao, V.R. (1969), Self-Conceptand Brand Preference:An
Empirical Application of Multidimensional Scaling,Journal of Market Research Society,
Vol. 11(4),pp.343-360.
Gremler, D.D. and Brown, S.W. (1998), Service Loyalty: Antecedents, Componentsand
Outcomes,American Marketing Association Winter Conference, pp. 165-166.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. and Krishnan, R. (1998), The Effects of Price-Comparison
Advertising on Buyers' Perceptionsof Acquisition Value,TransactionValue, and Behavioral
Intentions,Journal of Marketing, Vol.62(2), pp.46-59.
-285-
References
JNam. 2008
Gronroos, C. (1984), A Service Quality Model and Its Marketing Implications, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18(4),pp.36-44.
Gronroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Moments of
Truth in Service Competition, Lexington: Lexington Books.
Gronroos, C. (1997), Value-Driven Relational Marketing: From Products to Resourcesand
Competencies,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13(5), pp.407-420.
Groth, J.C. (1995), Exclusive Value and the Pricing of Services, Management Decision,
Vol.38(8), pp.22-29.
Grubb, E.L. and Stem, B.L. (1971), Self-Concept and Significant Others, Journal of
Marketing Research,Vol.38(3), pp.382-385.
Grunert-Beckman,S.C. and Askegaard,S. (1997), Seeing the Mind's Eye: On the Use of
Pictorial Stimuli in Values and Lifestyle Research, In Values, Lifestyles and
Psychographics, Edited by Kahle, L. R. and Chiagouris, L., NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.
Guerrier, Y., Baum, T., Jones, P. and Roper, A. (1998), In the World of Hospitality...
Anything They Can do, We Can do Better, London: Joint Hospitality Industry Congress.
Guest, L. P. (1942), Last Vs. Usual PurchaseQuestions,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 26(2), pp.180-186.
Guest, L. P. (1944), A Study of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.28(l),
pp.16-27.
Guest, L. P. (1955), Brand loyalty- Twelve Years Later, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol.39(6), pp.405-408.
Gulledge, L. G (1990), Simplify Complexity of Satisfying Customers, Marketing News,
Vol.24(l), pp.6-7,
Gutman, J. (1982), A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization
Processes,Journal of Marketing, Vol.46(2), pp.60-72.
Ha, C.L. (1998), The Theory of ReasonedAction Applied to Brand Loyalty, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol.7(l), pp.51-61.
-286-
References
JNam. 2008
Ein
Context
Satisfaction
Consumer
the
Model
of
Integrative
Ha, H.Y. (2006), An
of
Services,International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol.30(2), pp. 137-149.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson,R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (1998), Multivariate
Data Analysis, London: PrenticeHall.
Hair, U., Bush, R.P. and Ortinau, D.J. (2006), Marketing Research: Within a Changing
Information Environment, Maidenhead:McGraw-Hill Education.
Customer
Loyalty,
Satisfaction,
Customer
and
Relationships
The
(1996),
Hallowell, R.
of
Industry
Service
Journal
International
Study,
of
Empirical
Profitability: An
Management, Vol.7(4), pp.27-42.
Satisfaction
Multiscore
Effects
(1994),
S.
L.
the
Schmidt,
D.
on
Hartman,
D.,
Halstead,
and
114-129.
Science,
Vol.
22(2),
Marketing
Academy
Journal
the
pp.
Process,
Formation
of
of
Longer:
Buying
Buying
More
(1996),
A.
Ehrenberg,
R.
and
East,
Hammond, K.,
and
Business
London:
London
School.
Loyalty,
Consumer
Applications
Concepts and
of
into
Self.
Buying:
An
Exploration
Compulsive
(1992),
S.
M.
Wilhelm,
Hanley, A. and
Vol.
13(l),
5-18.
Psychology,
Economic
Journal
pp.
Esteemand Money Attitudes,
of
The
Satisfaction
Retention:
Customer
(2004),
M.
Albinsson,
and
Hansemark, O.C. and
Quality,
Vol.
40-57.
Service
14(l),
Managing
Employees,
Individual
pp.
Experiencesof
in
Performance
Cues
Hotel
Service
Employee
(1996),
C.
K.
Jones,
M.
D.
a
Hartline,
and
Value
Word-of-Mouth
Intentions,
Quality,
Service
Perceived
and
Influence
Environment:
on
Journal of BusinessResearch,Vol.35(3), pp.207-215.
Hauser,J.R. and Urban, GL. (1986), The Value Priority Hypothesesfor Customer Budget
Plans,Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 12(l), pp.446-462.
Hawkins, D.L., Best, R.J. and Coney, K. A. (1995), Consumer Behaviour: Building
Marketing Strategy, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hayes,N. (1998), Foundations of Psychology: An Introductory Text, Walton-on-Thames:
Nelson.
Haywood, K. M. (1989), Managing Word-of-Mouth Communications, Journal of Service
Marketing, Vol.3(2), pp.55-67.
Healy, M., and Perry, C. (2000), ComprehensiveCriteria to JudgeValidity and Reliability of
Qualitative Researchwithin the Realism Paradigm, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol.3(3), pp. 118-126.
-287-
References
JNam. 2008
Heiman, D. and Chernatony,L. D. (1999), Exploring the Development of Lifestyle Retail

Brands,Service Industries Journal, Vol. 19(2),pp.49-68.
Hernmington,N. and Watson,S. (2002), Managing Customer Expectations: The Marketing
Communications Vs Service Delivery Conundrum, International Journal of Customer
Relationship Management, Vol.5(4), pp.271-283.
Hemmington,N., Bowen, D., Wickens,E. and Paraskevas,A. (2005), Satisfying the Basics:
Reflections from a Consumer Perspectiveof Attractions Management at the Millennium
Dome, London, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol.7(l), pp.I- 10.
Heskett, U., Sasser,W.E. and Schlesinger,L. A. (1997), The Service Profit Chain, New
York: The Free Press.
Heung, V.C.S., Mok, C. and Kwan, A. (1996), Brand loyalty in Hotels: An Exploratory
Study of Overseas Visitors to Hong Kong, Australian Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol.3(l), pp.1-11.
Hoffman, K. D. and Bateson, J.E.G (1997), Essentials of Services Marketing, Orlando:
Dryden.
Hoffman, K. D. and John, E.G (2002), Essentials of Services Marketing:
Strategies and Cases,London: Harcourt College Publishers.
Concepts,
Hogg, M. A. and Abrams, D. (1988), Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of

Intergroup Relations and Group Processes,London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A. and Terry, D.J. (2000), Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processesin
OrganizationalContexts,Academy of Management Review, V61.25(l), pp. 121-140.
Homer, P.M. and Kahle, L. R. (1988), A Structural Equation Test of the Value-AttitudeBehavioral Hierarchy, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.54(4), pp.638646.
Hong, J.W. and Zinkhan, GM. (1995), Self-Concept and Advertising Effectiveness: The
Influence of Congruency, Conspicuousness,and Response Mode, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 12(l), pp.53-77.
Host, V. and Knie-Andersen, M. (2004), Modeling Customer Satisfaction in Mortgage
Credit Companies,International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.22(l), pp.26-42.
-288-
References
JNam. 2008
Howard, J.A. (1977), Consumer Behavior: Application of Theory, New York: McGrawHill.
Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Hsieh, M. H. (2004), Measuring Global Brand Equity Using Cross-National Survey Data,
Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 12(2),pp.28-57.
Hsu, C.H.C. and Powers, T.F. (2002), Marketing Hospitality, New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
http://www.bls.gov/
Http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy
Http://www. restaurant-org
Http://www. sric-bi.com/vals
http://www.unctad.org
Http://www.world-tourism.org
Http://www.wttc.org
Hudson, S., Hudson, P. and Miller, GA. (2004), The Measurementof Service Quality in the
Tour Operating Sector: A Methodological Comparison, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol.42(3), pp.305-312.
Hung, Y.H., Huang, M. L. and Chen, K. S. (2003), Service Quality Evaluation by Service
Quality Performance Matrix, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
Vol. 14(l), pp.79-89.
Hunt, S.D. (1990), Truth in Marketing Theory and Research, Journal of Marketing,
Vol.54(3), pp.I- 15.
Ingram, H. and Daskalakis,G (1999), Measuring Quality Gaps in Hotel: The Caseof Crete,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 1l(l), pp.24-30.
Jacoby, J. (1971), A Model of Multi-Brand Loyalty, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 11(3),pp.25-31.
-289-
-.
References
Nam. 2008
Journal
Behavior,
Purchasing
Vs.
Repeat
Loyalty
Brand
(1973),
D.
B.
Kyner,
J.
Jacoby, and
1-9.
Vol.
10(l),
Reseamh,
Marketing
pp.
of
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R. (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management,
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jain, A. K., Pinson, C. and Malhotra, N. (1987), Customer Loyalty as a Construct in the
Marketing of Banking Services,The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.5(3),
pp.49-72.
Jankowicz,A. D. (2005), BusinessResearch Projects, London: Thomson Learning.
Jarvis, L. P. and Mayo, E.J. (1986), Winning the Market-Share Game, Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol.27(3), pp.73-79.
Jarvis, L. P. and Wilcox, J.B. (1976), Repeat Purchasing Behavior and Attitudinal Brand
by
1977-1976
Bernhardt,
Beyond,
Edited
In
Marketing:
Evidence,
Additional
and
Loyalty:
K. L., New York: American Marketing Association,pp. 151-152.
for
Implications
Providers,
Loyalty:
Service
Service
(1997),
C.
R.
Moberg,
G
R.
Javalgi,
and
Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 11(3),pp.165-179.
Jayawardhena,C. (2004), PersonalValues' Influence on E-Shopping Attitude and Behaviour,
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 14(2), pp.127138.
Jensen, H.R. (2001), Antecedents and Consequencesof Consumer Value Assessments:
Implications for Marketing Strategy and Future Research, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services,Vol.8(6), pp.299-310.
Jobber,D. (2004), Principles and Practice of Marketing, London: McGraw-Hill.
Johnson,M. D., Herrmann, A. and Huber, F. (2006), The Evolution of Loyalty Intentions,
Johnson,M. D. and Fornell, C. (1991), A Framework for Comparing Customer Satisfaction
Across Individuals and Product Categories,Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 12(2),
pp.267-282.
Johnson, M. D., Gustafsson,A., Andreassen,T.W., Lervik, L. and Cha, J. (2001), The
Evolution and Future of National Customer Satisfaction Index Models, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol.22(2), pp.217-245.
-290-
References
JNam, 2008
Jones, J.P. and Slater, J.S. (2003), What's in a Name?: Advertising and Concept of
Brands, New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Jones,M. A. and Suh, J. (2000), Transaction-SpecificSatisfaction and Overall Satisfaction:
An Empirical Analysis, Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 14(2), pp. 147-159.
Jones,P. (2002), Introduction to Hospitality Operations: An Indispensable Guide to the
Industry, London: Continuum.
Jones, P. and Lockwood, A. (2004), The Management of Hotel Operations, London:
ThomsonLearning.
Jones,T.O. and Sasser,W.E. (1995), Why Satisfied CustomersDefect, Harvard Business
Review, Vol.73(6), pp.88-91.
Juster, F.T. (1966), Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability, an
Experiment in Survey Design, New York: Columbia University Press.
Kahle, L. R. (1980), Stimulus Condition Self-Selectionby Males in the Interaction of Locus
Journal
Personality
Social
Psychology,
Situations,
Skill-Chance
Control
of
and
and
of
Vol.38(l), pp.50-56.
Kahle, L. R. (1983), Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation of Life in America,
New York: Praeger.
Kahle, L. R., Beatty, S.E. and Homer, P. (1986), Alternative MeasurementApproachesto
ConsumerValues: The List of Values (LOV) and Values and Life Styles (VALS), Journal
405-409.
13(3),
Vol.
Research,
Consumer
pp.
of
Kahle, L. R. and Kennedy, P. (1989), Using the List of Values (LOV) to Understand
Consumers,The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.6(3), pp.5-12.
Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M. U. and Morrison, D. G. (1986), Measuring Variety Seeking and
ReinforcementBehaviors Using Panel Data, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.23(2),
pp.89-100.
Kamakura, A. W. and Novak, T. (1992), Value-System Segmentation: Exploring the
Meaning of LOV, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 19(l), pp. 119-132.
Kamakuran, W.A. and Russell, GJ. (1993), Measuring Brand Value with Scanner Data,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10(l), pp. 9-21.
-291-
References
JNam. 2008
Kandampully, J. and Suhartanto,D. (2000), Customer Loyalty in the Hotel Industry: The
Role of Customer Satisfaction and Image, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 12(6),pp.346-351.
Kapferer,J.N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management, New York: The Free Press.
Kaplan, R.W. and Saccuzzo,D.P. (1982), Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications,
Brooks/Cole.
Monterey:
Issues,
and
Kayaman,R. and Arasli, H. (2007), CustomerbasedBrand Equity: Evidence from the Hotel
Industry,Managing Service Quality, Vol.17(l), pp.92-109.
Keller, K. L. (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-BasedBrand
Equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol.57(l), pp.1-22.
Keller, K. L. (2001), Building Customer-BasedBrand Equity, Marketing Management,
Vol. 10(2),pp.14-19.
Keller, K. L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing
Brand Equity, New Jersey:PrenticeHall.
Keng, K.A. and Liu, S. (1997),PersonalValuesand ComplaintBehaviour:The Caseof

Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices,Vol.4(2),pp.89-97.
SingaporeConsumers,
Key Note Hotel (2005), Hotel Market Report, Hampton: Key Note Ltd.
Key Note Restaurant(2005), Restaurant Market Report, Hampton: Key Note Ltd.
Kim, C.K., Han, D. C. and Park, S.B. (2001a), The Effect of Brand Personality and Brand
Identification on Brand Loyalty: Applying the Theory of Social Identification, Japanese
Psychological Research,Vol.43(4), pp.195-206.
Kim, J., Kaye, J. and Wright, L. K. (2001b), Moderating and Mediating Effects in Causal
Models, Issues in Mental Health Nursing, Vol.22(l), pp.637-675.
-292-
References
JNam, 2008
Kim, H.B., Kim, W.G and An, J.A. (2003), The Effect of Consumer-BasedBrand Equity on
Firms'Financial Performance,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.20(4), pp.335-351.
Kim, W.G and Kim, H.B. (2004), Measuring Customer-BascdRestaurant Brand Equity:
Investigating the Relationship between Brand Equity and Firms' Performance, Cornell
Hoteland Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol.45(2), pp. 115-131.
Kim, H.B. and Kim, W.G (2005), The Relationship between Brand Equity and Firms'
Performancein Luxury Hotels and Chain Restaurants,Tourism Management, Vol.26(4),
pp.549-560.
Kim, W.G, Lee, S. and Lee, MY (2007), Co-Branding and Brand Loyalty, Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol.8(2), pp. 1-23.
Kim, W.G, Jin-Sun, B.J. and Kim, H.J. (2008), Multidimensional Customer-BasedBrand
Equity and Its Consequencesin Midpriced Hotels, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Kinnear, T.C. and Taylor, J.R. (1996), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Techniques
Klenert,A. andHemmington,N. (2001),CustomerFeedbackMeasurement
and
Their Implications for Hotels, International Journal of Customer Relationship
Management,Vol.4(2),pp.103-113.
Knox, S. (1997), The Death of Brand Deference: Can Brand Management Stop the Rot?,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.6(l), pp.49-55.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G Saunders,J. and Wong, V. (1996), Principles of Marketing,
Hemel Hempstead:Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, C!, Saunders,J. and Wong, V. (2001), Principles of Marketing,
Essex:PearsonEducationLtd.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J. and Makens, J. (2003), Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism,
Upper SaddleRiver, N. J: PrenticeHall.
Kozak, N., Karatepe,O.M. and Avic, T. (2003), Measuring the Quality of Airline Services:
Evidencefrom Northern Cyprus, Tourism Analysis, Vol.8(l), pp.75-87.
Krishnamurthi, L. and Raj, S.P. (1991), An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship between
Brand Loyalty and ConsumerPrice Elasticity, Marketing Science,Vol. 10(2), pp.172-183.
-293-
References
JNam. 2008
Kressmann,F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann,A., Huber, F., Huber, S. and Lee, D.J. (2006), Direct
Loyalty,
Brand
Journal
Business
Congruence
Self-Image
Effects
Indirect
on
of
of
and
Kuehn, A. A. (1962), Consumer Brand Choice as a Learning Process, Journal of
Advertising Research,Vol.2(4), pp.10-17.
Kumar, V., Bohling, T.R. and Ladda, R.N. (2003), Antecedents and Consequencesof
RelationshipIntention: Implications for Transactionand Relationship Marketing, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol.32(8), pp.667-676.
Kurtz, D.L. and Clow, K. E. (1998), ServicesMarketing, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lages, L. F. and Fernandes,J.C. (2005), The SERPVAL Scale: A Multi-Item Instrumentfor
Measuring Service Personal Values,Journal of Business Research, Vol.58(11), pp.15621572.
Lam, T. (2003), Leader-Member Exchange and Team-Member Exchange: The Role of
Moderators in New Employees' Socialization, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research,Vol.27(l), pp.48-68.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma,A. (1995), Measuring Consumer-BasedBrand Equity,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12(4), pp.4-11.
Lau, R. (1989), Individual and Contextual Influences on Group Identification, Social
Psychology Quarterly, Vol.52(3), pp.220-231.
LeClere, F. and Little, J.D.C. (1997), Can Advertising Copy Make FSI Coupons More
Effective?, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol.34(4), pp.473-484.
Lee, C.K., Ybon,Y.S. and Lee, S.K. (2007), Investigating the Relationships among
Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Recommendations:The Case of the Korean DMZ,
Tourism Management, V61.28(1),pp.204-214.
Lee, M. and Cunningham,L. F. (2001), A Cost/Benefit Approach to UnderstandingService
Loyalty, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15(2), pp.113-130.
Lewis, R.C. and Chambers, R.E. (2000), Marketing Leadership in Hospitality, New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lewis, B.R.(1993), Service Quality: Recent Developments in Financial Services,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 11(6),pp. 19-25.
-294-
References
JNam, 2008
from
Loyalty
Brand
Antecedents
Examining
(2008),
J.
F.
the
an
Petrick,
of
Li, X. and
InvestmentModel Perspective,Journal of Travel Research, Vol.47(l), pp.25-34.
Loyalty
Deten-ninants
Customer
Examination
An
the
(2006),
Y.
S.
Wang,
of
of
H.
H.
Lin,
and
in Mobile CommerceContexts,Information and Management, Vol.43(3), pp.271-282.
Ih
Annual
Brand
Switching,
The
5
Loyalty
Brand
Dynamics
The
(1959),
B.
and
Lipstein,
of
Conference of the Advertising ResearchFoundation, pp. 101-108.
Theory?,
Congruity:
A
Valid
Tourism
Self-Image
(2002),
H.
K.
Goh,
Litvin, S.W. and
Tourism Management, Vol.23(l), pp-81-83.
Llosa, S., Chandon,U. and Orsingher, C. (1998), An Empirical Study of SERVQUAUs
Dimensionality, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18(2), pp. 16-44.
Long, M. M. and Shiffman, L. G (2000), Consumption Values and Relationships:
Segmenting the Market for Frequency Programs, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 17(3), pp.214-232.
Lovelock, C. and Wright, L. (2002), Principles of service marketing and management,
New Jersey:PrenticeHall.
Low, G. S. and Lamb, C.W. (2000), The Measurement and Dimensionality of Brand
Associations,Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.9(6), pp.350-368.
Madanoglu, M. (2004), Validating Restaurant Service Quality Dimensions, Journal of
Foodservice BusinessResearch,Vol.7(4), pp.127-147.
Madrigal, R. and Kahle, L. (1994), Predicting VacationActivity Preferenceson the Basis of
Value-SystemSegmentation,Journal of Travel Research,Vol.32(3), pp.22-28.
Madrigal, R. (1995), PersonalValues,Traveler Personality Type, and Leisure Travel Style,
Journal of Leisure Research,Vol.27(2), pp.125-142.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, BE (1992), Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the
Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 13(2), pp.103-123.
Maio, GR. and Olson, J.M. (1994), Value-Attitude-Behavior Relations, the Moderating
Role of Attitude Functions,British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.33(3), pp.301-312.
-295-
References
JNam, 2008
Malhotra, N. K. (1987), Validity and Structural Reliability of Multi-Dimensional Scaling,

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.24(2), pp.164-173.
Malhotra, N. K. (1988), Self-Concept and Product Choice: An Integrated Perspective,
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol.9(l), pp.1-28.
Malhotra, N. K. (2004), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, New Jersey:
PearsonPrenticeHall.
MartinezCaro,L. andMartinezGarcia,J.A. (2007),MeasuringPerceivedQuality in Urgent

TransportService,Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices,Vol.14(l), pp.60-72.
Maslow, A. H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper and Brothers.
Matsuoka, H., Chelladurai, P. and Harada, M. (2003), Direct and Interaction Effects of
Team Identification and Satisfaction on Intention to Attend Games, Sport Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 12(4), pp.244-253.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An interactive Approach,
ThousandOaks: Sage.
McAlexander, J.H., Kaldenberg, D.O. and Koenig, H.F. (1994), Service Quality
Measurement: Examination of Dental Practices Sheds More Light on the Relationship
betweenService Quality, Satisfaction, and Purchase Intentions in a Health Care Setting,
Vol. 14(3),pp.34-40.
McAlister, L. and Pessernier,E. (1982), Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary
Review,Journal of Consumer Research,Vol.9(3), pp.311-322.
McConnell, J.D. (1968), The Developmentof Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study,Journal
5(1),
Vol.
13-19.
Research,
Marketing
pp.
of
McDaniel, C. and Gates,R. (2006), Marketing Research Essentials, New York: Wiley.
McDougall, G and Levesque,T. (1994), A Revised View of Service Quality Dimensions:
An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Professional Service Marketing, Vol. 11(l),
pp.189-210.
McDougall, G and Levesque, T. (2000), Customer Satisfaction with Services: Putting
PerceivedValue into the Equation, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14(5), pp.282-410.
-296-
References
JNam, 2008
Yarra:
South
Management,
Marketing
Services:
(1999),
Australian
L.
and
McGuire,
Macmillian EducationAustralia Pty. Ltd.
Meglino, B.M. and Ravlin, E.C. (1998), Individual Values in Organizations: Concepts,
Controversies,and Research,Journal of Management, Vol.24(3), pp.351-389.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), Approach to Environment
Cambridge:MIT Press.
Psychology,
Loyalty
(1996),
A
Review
E.
M.
Brand
J.
B.
Steenkamp,
G
M.
Dekimpe,
of
M.,
Mellens,
and
507Vol.
41(4),
Management,
Economic
Tijdschrift
pp.
in
Marketing,
Measures
en
voor
533.
Mitchell, A. (1983), The Nine American Life Styles,New York: Harper.
Monroe, K. B. (1990), Pricing: Marketing Profitable Decisions, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (1998), Tourism Promotion and Power: Creating Images,
Creating Identities, Chichester:John Wiley.
Morton, L. P. (1999), Segmenting Publics by Lifestyles, Public Relations Quarterly,
Vol.44(3), pp.46-47.
Motameni, R. and Shahrokhi, M. (1998), Brand Equity Valuation: A Global Perspective,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.7(4), pp.275-290.
Muller, C.C. and Woods, R.H. (1994), An Expected RestaurantTypology, Cornell Hotel
Vol.
35(3),
27-37.
Quarterly,
Administration
Restaurant
pp.
and
Muller, C.C. (1998), EndorsedBranding, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, Vol.39(3), pp.90-96.
Muller, T. E. (1989), Using PersonalValuesto Define Segmentsin an International Tourism
Market, International Marketing Review, Val.8(l), pp.57-70.
Mullins, L. J. (1996), Management and Organizational Behaviour, London: Pitman.
Murphy, J.M. (1990), Brand Strategy, New York: PrenticeHall.
Murphy, K. R. and Davidshofer, C.O. (1988), Psychological Testing: Principles and
Applications, New Jersey:Prentice Hall.
-297-
JNam. 2008
--
References
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P. and Smith, B. (2000), The Destination Product and Its Impact
on Traveller Perceptions,Tourism Management, Vol.21(1), pp.43-52.
Munson, J.M. and McQuarrie, E.F. (1988), Shorteningthe Rokeach Value Survey for Use in
ConsumerResearch,Advances in Consumer Research,Vol-15, pp.381-386.
Newman,J.W. (1966), On Knowing the Consumer, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Odin, Y., Odin, N. and Valette-Florence,P. (2001), Conceptual and Operational Aspectsof
Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Business Research, V01.53(2),
pp.75-84.
Oh, H. (1999), Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Value: A Holistic
Perspective,International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 18(l), pp.67-82.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequencesof
SatisfactionDecisions,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 17(4), pp.460-469.
Oliver, R.L. (1993), Cognitive, Affective and Attribute Basesof the Satisfaction Response,
Journal of Consumer Research,Vol.20(3), pp.418-430.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), Whence Consumerloyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol.63(4), 33pp.
44.
Onkvisit, S. and Shaw,J. (1987), Self-Conceptand Image Congruence:Some Researchand
Managerial Implications, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.4(l), pp. 13-23.
Onkvisit, S. and Shaw,J. (1994), Consumer Behavior: Strategy and Analysis, New York:
Macmillan College Publishing.
Oppermann, M. (1997), First-Time and Repeat Visitors to New Zealand, Tourism
Management, Vol. 18(3), pp. 177-181.
-298-
JNam, 2008
References
Oppennann,M. (1999), Predicting DestinationChoice- A Discussion of Destination Loyalty,

Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol.5(1), pp.51-65.
Oppermann, M. (2000), Tourism Destination Loyalty, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol.39(l), pp.78-84.
O'Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), Organizational Commitment and Psychological
Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial
Behavior,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.71(3), p.492-499.
Orth, U.R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer,T. and Lopetcharat, K. (2004), Promoting Brand
Benefits: The Role of Consumer Psychographicsand Lifestyle, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol.21(2), pp.97-108.
O'Shaughnessy,J. (1987), Why People Buy, New York: Oxford University Press.
Pallant, J. (2005), SPSSSurvival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using
SPSSfor Windows, Maidenhead:Open University Press.
Palmer,A. (2005), Principles of ServicesMarketing, London: McGraw-Hill.
Pappu, R. and Quester, P. (2006), Does Customer Satisfaction Lead to Improved Brand
Equity? An Empirical Examination of Two Categories of Retail Brands, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 15(l), pp.4-14.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. L. (1985), A Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and Its Implications for Future Research,Journal of Marketing, Vol.49(4),pp.4150.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. L. (1988), SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item
Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing,
Vol.64(l), pp.12-40.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service:
Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations, New York: Free Press.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. L. (1993), Research Note: More on
Improving Service Quality Measurement,Journal of Retailing, Vol.69(l), pp.140-147.
Parasuraman,A., Zcithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. L. (1994), Reassessment
of Expectationsas a
Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research,
Journal of Marketing, Vol.58(l), pp. 111-125.
-299-
References
JNam. 2008
Parasuraman,A. (1997), Reflections on Gaining Competitive Advantage through Customer

Value,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol.25(2), pp. 154-161.
Park, C. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and
Understanding Brand Equity and Its Extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol.31(2), pp.271-288.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and Mac1nnis, D.J. (1986), Strategic Brand Concept-Image
Management,Journal of Marketing, Vol.50(4), pp.135-145.
Patterson,P.G. and Spreng, R.A. (1997), Modeling the Relationship between Perceived
Value, Satisfactionand RepurchaseIntentions in a Business-to-Business,ServicesContext:
An Empirical Examination, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol. 8(5), pp.414-434.
Perkins, W.S. and Reynolds, T.J. (1988), The Explanatory Power of Values in Preference
Judgments: Validation of the Mean-End Perspective,Advances in Consume Research,
Vol. 15, pp.122-126.
Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1993), Consumer Behavior and Marketing
Homewood,IL: Irwin.
Strategy,
Peter,J.P., Churchill, GA. and Brown, T.J. (1993), Caution in the Use of Difference Scores
in ConsumerResearch,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19(4), pp.655-662.
Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C. and Grunert, K. G. (1999), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing
Strategy, London:McGraw-Hill.
Peterson, R.A. (1994), A Meta-Analysis of Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha, Journal of
Consumer Research,Vol.21(2), pp.381-391.
Petrick, J.F. and Backman, S.J. (2002), An Examination of the Construct of PerceivedValue
for the Prediction of Golf Travelers' Intentions to Revisit, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol.41(I), pp.38-45.
Petrick, J.F., Morais, D.D. and Norman, W.C. (2001), An Examination of the Determinants
of EntertainmentVacationers'Intentions to Revisit, Journal of Travel Research, V01.40(l),
pp.41-48.
Petrick, U. (2002), Development of a Multi-Dimensional Scale for Measuring the
PerceivedValue of a Service,Journal of Leisure Research,Vol.34(2), pp. 119-134.
-300-
References
JNwn. 2008
Pitta, D.S. and Katsanis, L. P. (1995), UnderstandingBrand Equity for Successful Brand
Extension,Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 12(4), pp.51-64.
Pitts, R.E. and Woodside, A. G (1983), PersonalValue Influences on Consumer Product
Classand Brand Preferences,Journal of Social Psychology, Vol, 119,pp.35-53.
Pitts, R.E., Wong,J.K. and Whalen, D.J. (1991), Consumers'Evaluative Structuresin Two
Ethical Situations: A Means-End Approach, Journal of Business Research, VOI.22(2),
pp.119-130.
Pizam, A. and Ellis, T. (1999), Customer Satisfaction and Its Measurement in Hospitality
Enterprises, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 11(7),pp.326-339.
Powcrs, TA and Barrows, C.W. (2006), Introduction to the Hospitality Industry, New
York: John Wilcy & Sons.
Prakash,V. and Munson, J.M. (1985), Values,Expectationsfrom the Marketing Systemand
Product Expectations,Psychology and Marketing, Vol.2(4), pp.279-296.
Brand
Equity:
A
Customer-Centric
Hotel
Managing
(2000),
S.
C.
Dev,
K.
Prasad, and
Frameworkfor AssessingPerformance,Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, Vol.41(3),pp.22-31.
Impact
Technology
The
(2000),
D.
Grewal,
A.
of
on the Quality-ValueParasuraman, and
Loyalty Chain: A ResearchAgenda, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol.28(l), pp.168-174.
Pritchard, M., Howard, D.R. and Havitz, M. E. (1992), The Loyal Measurement:A Critical
Examination and Theoretical Extension,Leisure Sciences,Vol. 14(2), pp. 155-164.
Pritchard, M. and Howard, D.R. (1997), The Loyalty Traveler: Examining a Typology of
ServicePatronage,Journal of Travel Research,Vol.35(4), pp.2-10.
Proctor, T. (2005), Essentials of Marketing Research, Harlow: Financial Times Prentice
Hall.
Quester,P. and Lim, A.L. (2003),ProductInvolvement/B

rand Loyalty: Is Therea Link?,
Journal of Product and Brand Management,V61.12(l),pp.22-38.
Raj, S.P. (1985), Striking a Balance betweenBrand Popularity and Brand Loyalty, Journal
of Marketing, Vol.49(l), pp.53-59.
-301-
References
JNam. 2008
Reich, A. Z., McCleary, K. W., Tepanon,Y. and Weaver,P.A. (2005), The Impact of Product
Investigation
Quick-Service
Exploratory
An
Loyalty:
Brand
Quality
Service
of
on
and
Restaurants,Journal of Foodservice BusinessResearch,Vol. 8(3), pp.35-53.
Reichardt,C.S. and Cook, T.D. (1979), Beyond Qualitative Versus Quantitative Methods,
In Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research,Edited by Cook, T.D. and
Reichardt,C.S., Beverly Hill: Sage,pp.7-32.
Reichheld,FA (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits,
School
Press.
Business
Harvard
Boston:
Value,
Lasting
and
Reynolds, F.D., Darden, W.R. and Martin, W.S. (1974), Developing an Image of the Store
Loyal Customer,Journal of Retailing, Vol.50(4), pp.73-84.
Reynolds, T.J., Gengler, C.E. and Howard, D.J. (1995), A Mean-End Analysis of Brand
Persuasion Through Advertising, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 12(3),pp.257-266.
Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1984), Laddering: Extending the Repertory Grid
Methodology to Construct Attribute-Consequence-Value Hierarchies, In Personal
Values and Consumer Psychology,Edited by Pitts, R.E. and Woodside, A. G, Lexington:
Lexington Books, pp.155-167.
Reynolds, T.J. and Jolly, J.P. (1980), Measuring Personal Values: An Evaluation of
Alternative Methods,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 17(4), pp.531-536.
Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988), Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis, and
Interpretation,Journal of Advertising Research,Vol.28(l), pp. 11-31.
Reynolds, T.J. and Craddock, A. B. (1988), The Application of the Meccas Model to the
Development and Assessment of Advertising Strategy: A Case Study, Journal of
Advertising Research,Vol.28(2), pp.43-54.
Reynolds, T.J. and Gengler, Q (1991), A Strategic Framework for AssessingAdvertising:
The Animatic Vs. Finished Issue,Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.31(5), pp.61-71.
Richard, M. D. and Allaway, A. W. (1993), Service Quality Attributes and Choice Behavior,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.7(l), pp.59-68.
Rogers, H.P., Peyton, R.M. and Berl, R.L. (1992), Measurement and Evaluation of
Satisfaction Processesin a Dyadic, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
Vol.
5,
Behavior,
12-23.
Complaining
pp.
and
-302-
References
JNam. 2008
Rokeach, M. (1968), Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and

Change, New York: Free Press.
Rokeach,M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values,New York: Free Press.
Roselius, T. (1971), Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods, Journal of
Rosenberg,M. (1979), Conceiving the Self, New York: Basic Books.
Rosenberg,L. J. and Czepiel, J.A. (1983), A Marketing Approach for Customer Retention,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 1(2), pp.45-51.
Rotchanakitumnuai,S. and Speece,M. (2003), Barriers to Internet Banking Adoption: A
Qualitative Study among CorporateCustomersin Thailand, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol.21(6/7), pp.312-323.
Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser,W.E. (1990), Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services,
Harvard BusinessReview, Vol.68(5), pp.105-111.
Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennett, R. (2001), A Brand for All Seasons?A Discussion of Brand
Loyalty Approachesand Their Applicability for Different Markets, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 10(l), pp.25-37.
Rundle-Thiele, S. and Mackay, M. M. (2001), Assessingthe Performanceof Brand Loyalty
Measures,Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 15(7), pp.529-546.
RusselI-Bennett,* R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Coote, L. V. (2007), Involvement,
Satisfaction,and Brand Loyalty in a Small BusinessServices Setting, Journal of Business
Research,Vol.60(12), pp.1253-1260.
Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1994), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and
Practice, London: SagePublications.
Rust, R.T. and Zahorik, A. J. (1993), Customer Satisfaction, Customer Retention, and
Market Share,Journal of Retailing, Vol.69(2), pp.193-215.
Rust, R.T., Zeithaml, V.A. and Lemon, K. N. (2000), Driving Customer Equity: How
Customer Lifetime Value is Reshaping Corporate Strategy, New York: The Free Press.
Saleh,F. and Ryan, C. (1991), Analyzing Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry Using
the SERVQUALModel, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 11(3),pp.324-343.
-303-
References
JNa?n. 2008
Sanchez,J., Callarisa, L., Rodriguez, R.M. and Moliner, M. A. (2006), PerceivedValue of

394-409.
Vol.
27(3),
Management,
Tourism
Tourism
Product,
Purchase
pp.
the
of a
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003), Research Methods for Business
Students, Harlow: Financial Times PrenticeHall.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987), Towards a Universal Psychological Structure of
HumanValues,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.53(3), pp.550-562.
Coefficient
Alpha, Psychological Assessment,
Abuses
Uses
(1996),
N.
of
and
Schmitt,
Vol.8(4), pp.350-353.
for
Business:
Methods
A Skill Building Approach, New
Research
(2003),
U.
Sekaran,
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Effect
Examination
An
the
(1993),
F.
of
of Product Performanceon Brand
Selnes,
Journal
European
Loyalty,
Marketing,
Vol.27(9),pp.19Satisfaction
of
and
Reputation,
35.
in
Styles
Response
Loyalty
Brand
Consider
(1993),
and
Semon,T.T.
Marketing News,Vol.27(22),pp.9-10.
Research,
Shamir, B. (1990), Calculations, Values,and Identities: The Sourcesof Collectivistic Work
Motivation, Human Relations, Vol.43(4), pp.313-332.
Sharp, A., Sharp, B. and Wright, M. (2002), Questioning the Value of the True Brand
Loyalty Distinction, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19(l), pp.81.
90.
Sheth,J.N. (1968), How Adults Learn Brand Preference,Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol.8(3), pp.25-36.
in RepetitiveConsumer
M. (1968),Risk-ReductionProcesses
Sheth,J.N. and Venkatesan,
Behavior,Journal of Marketing, V61.5(3),pp.307-310.
Sheth,J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, L. G (1991), Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory
of ConsumptionValues,Journal of BusinessResearch,Vol.22(2), pp.159-170.
Shim, S. and Eastlick, M. A. (1998), The Hierarchical Influence of PersonalValueson Mail
ShoppingAttitude and Behavior, Journal of Retailing, Vol.74(l), pp. 139-160.
Shoemaker,S. and Lewis, R.C. (1999), Customer Loyalty: The Future of Hospitality
Marketing, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 18(4), pp.345-370.
-304-
P-r
1 4--
JNam. 2008
ces
Sieber,S. (1973), The Integration of Fieldwork and Survey Methods, American Journal of
Sociology,Vol. 78(6), pp. 1335-1359.
Simon, C. J. and Sullivan, MAV. (1993), The Measurement and Determinants of Brand
Equity: A FinancialApproach, Alarketing Science,Vol. 12(l), pp.28-52.
in
Consumer
Trust,
Value,
Loyalty
(2002),
B.
Sabol,
J.
Singh,
and
Sirdeshmukh,D.,
and
15-37.
66(l),
Vol.
Marketing,
Journal
pp.
Relational Exchanges,
of
Review,
A
Critical
Journal
Behavior:
Consumer
in
of
Self-Concept
Sirgy, MJ. (1982),
Consumer Research,Vol.9(3), pp.287-300.
Sirgy, M. J., Grcwal, D., Manglcburg, T.F., Park, J., Chon, K., Claiborne, C.B., Johar, J.S.
Validity
Two
Methods
Measuring
Predictive
Assessing
the
(1997),
of
H.
of
Berkman,
and
Marketing
Science,
Vol.
25(3),
Academy
the
Journal
of
of
Self-Image Congruence,
pp.229-241.
Self-Congruity,
Image,
Travel
Behavior:
Destination
(2000),
C.
Su,
and
MJ.
Sirgy,
and
Vol.
Research,
38(4),
340-352.
Travel
Journal
Model,
pp.
Integrative
of
Toward an
Environment,
Retail
Self.
Congruity,
(2000),
T.
Mangleburg,
D.
Grewal,
Sirgy, MJ.,
and
Agenda,
Journal
Research
Business
Model
Integrative
a
An
and
of
and Retail Patronage:
Research,Vol.49(2), pp. 127-138.
(1998),
A
Model
Consumer
D.
A.
Perceptionsand
Wittink,
E.
of
McLaughin,
N.,
Sirohi,
and
Retailer,
Journal
Supermarket
for
Intentions
of Retailing, Vol.75(2),
a
Store Loyalty
pp.223-245.
Smith, D.C. (1991), An Examination of Product and Market Characteristics that Affect
the Financial Outcomes of Brand Extensions, Cambridge: Marketing ScienceInstitute.
Solomon, M. R. (2002), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being, New Jersey:
PrenticeHall.
Solomon, M. R., Bamossy, G and Askegaard, S. (2002), Consumer Behaviour: A
European Perspective, Harlow: Financial Times Prcntice-Hall.
Spreng,R.A. and Mackoy, R.D. (1996), An Empirical Examination of a Model of Perceived
ServiceQuality and Satisfaction,Journal of Retailing, Vol.72(2), pp.201-214.
Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B. and 01shavsky, R.W. (1996), A Reexamination of the
Determinantsof ConsumerSatisfaction,Journal of Marketing, Vol.60(3), pp.15-32.
-305-
References
JNam. 2008
Srinivasan, V., Park, C.S. and Chang, D.R. (2005), An Approach to the Measurement,
Analysis, and Prediction of Brand Equity and Its Sources,Management Science,Vol.51(9),
pp.1433-1448.
Srivastava,R. K. and Shocker,A. D. (1991), Brand Equity: A Perspective on Its Meaning
Institute.
Science
Marketing
Cambridge:
Measurement,
and
Stanton, W.T., Etzel, M. L. and Walker, B.J. (1991), Fundamentals of Marketing, New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Stayman,D.M. and Deshpande,R. (1989), Situational Ethnicity and Consumer Behavior,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16(3),pp.361-371.
Styles, C. and Ambler, T. (1995), Brand Management, In Financial Times Handbook of
Management,Edited by Crainer, S., London: Pitman,pp.581-593.
Swait, J., Erdem, T., Louviere, J. and Dubelaar, C. (1993), The Equalization Price: A
Measure of Consumer-PerceivedBrand Equity, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 10(l), pp.2345.
J.C., Soutar,GN. andJohnson,L.M. (1996),Retail ServiceQualityandPerceived

Sweeney,
Value:A Comparisonof Two Models, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol.4(l), pp.39-48.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Johnson, L. M. (1997), Retail Service Quality and
Perceived Value: A Comparison of Two Models, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services,Vol. 4(l), pp.39-48.
Sweeney,J.C., Soutar, GN. and Johnson,L. M. (1999), The Role of Perceived Risk in the
Quality-Value Relationship: A Study in a Retail Environment, Journal of Retailing,
Vol.75(l), pp.77-105.
Sweeney,J.C. and Soutar, GN. (2001), Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of
Multiple Item Scale,Journal of Retailing, Vol.77(2), pp.203-220.
Swan, J.E., Trawick, I.F. and Carroll, M. G (1981), Effect of Participation in Marketing
Researchon ConsumerAttitudes Toward Researchand Satisfactionwith a Service,Journal
of Marketing Research,Vol. 18(3), pp.356-363.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1979), An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict, In
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Edited by Austin, GW. and Worchel, S.,
Monterey: Wadsworth.
-306-
References
JNam. 2008
Tam, J.L. M. (2000), The Effects of Service Quality, Perceived Value and Customer
Satisfaction on Behavioral Intentions, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing,
Vol.6(4), pp.3143.
Taylor, S.A. and Baker, T.L. (1994), An Assessmentof the Relationship between Service
Quality and CustomerSatisfaction,Journal of Retailing, Vol.70(2), pp. 163-178.
Teas,R.K. (1993), Expectations,PerfonnanceEvaluation, and Consumers' Perceptionsof
Quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol.57(4), pp.18-34.
Teas,R.K. (1994), Expectationsas a ComparisonStandardin Measuring Service Quality:
Journal of Marketing, Vol.58(t), pp. 132-140.
AnAssessmentof a Reassessment,
Tepeci, M. (1999), Increasing Band Loyalty in the Hospitality Industry, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11(5), pp.223-229.
Tranberg, H. and Hansen, F. (1986), Patternsof Brand Loyalty: Their Determinants and
TheirRole for Leading Brands, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.20(3), pp.81-109.
Tse, D.K. and Wilton, P.C. (1988), Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An
Extension,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol.25(2), pp.204-212.
Tucker, W.T. (1964), The Developmentof Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 1(3), pp.32-35.
Tull, D. S. and Hawkins, D.I. (1993), Marketing Research: Measurement and Method: A
Text with Cases,New Jersey:PrenticeHall.
Uncles, M. D., Dowling, GR. and Hommond, K. (2003), Customer Loyalty and Customer
Loyalty Programs,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.20(4), pp.294-314.
Ulaga, W. and Chacour, S. (2001), Measuring Customer-PerceivedValue in Business
Markets: A Prerequisite for Marketing Strategy Development and Implementation,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.30(6), pp.525-540.
Valette-Florence,P. and Jolibert, A. (1990), Social Values,AlO and Consumption Patterns:
Exploratory Findings, Journal of BusinessResearch,Vol.20(2), pp. 109-122.
Valette-Florence,P. and Rapacchi,B. (1991), Improvementsin Means-End Chain Analysis:
Using Graph Theory and CorrespondenceAnalysis, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol.3 1(1), pp-30-45.
-307-
References
JNam. 2008
Van Raaij, W.F. and Verhallen, T.M. M. (1994), Domain-Specific Market Segmentation,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol.28(10), pp.49-66.
Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A. B. and Iglesias, V. (2002), Consumer-Based Brand Equity:
Development and Validation of a Measurement Instrument, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 18(1/2),pp. 2748.
Veal, A. J. (1997), Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide,
London: Pitman Institute of Leisure andAmenity Management.
Veloutsou, C., Gilbert, G.R., Moutinho, L. A. and Goode, M. M. H. (2005), Measuring
Transaction-Specific Satisfaction in Services: Are the Measures Transfrable Across
Cultures?, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39(5/6), pp. 606-628.
Veroff, J., Douvan, E. and Kulka, R.A. (1981), The Inner American: A Self-Portrait from
1957 to 1976,New York: Basic Books.
Vinson, D.E., Scott, J.D. and Lamont, L. M. (1977), The Role of Personal Values in
Marketing and ConsumerBehavior, Journal of Marketing, Vol.41(2), pp.44-50.
Vinson, D.E. and Munson, M. (1976), Personal Values: An Approach to Market
Segmentation, in Marketing 1776-1976and Beyond, Edited by Bernhardt, K., Chicago:
American Marketing Association, pp.313-318.
Wakefield, K. L. and Barnes, J.H. (1996), Retailing Hedonic Consumption: A Model of
SalesPromotion of a Leisure Service,Journal of Retailing, Vol.72(4), pp.409-427.
Walker, J.L. (1995), Service Encounter Satisfaction: Conceptualized,Journal of Services
Walker, J.R. (2008), Exploring the Hospitality Industry, New Jersey: PearsonPrentice
Hall.
Wall, E.A. and Berry, L. L. (2007), The Combined Effects of the Physical Environment and
Employee Behavior on CustomerPerceptionof RestaurantService Quality, Cornell Hotel
Quarterly,
Vol.
48(l),
59-69.
Administration
Restaurant
pp.
and
Wansink, B. (2003), Using Laddering to Understand and Leverage a Brand's Equity,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol.6(2), pp. 111-118.
Warde,A. and Martens, L. (2000), Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption, and
Pleasure, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
-308-
References
JNam. 2008
Washburn,J.H. and Plank, R.E. (2002), Measuring Brand Equity: An Evaluation of a

Customer-BasedBrand Equity Scale, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 10(l), pp.46-61.
Wason, P.C. and Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1972), Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and
Content, Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Watkins,T. (1986), The Economics of the Brand, London: McGraw-Hill.
Webber,S. (1998), Loyalty and Commitment in the Online Industry, 22"' international
Online Information Alecting, pp.257-268.
Webber, J.F- (1999), Understanding & Designing Marketing
InternationalThomsonDusinessPress.
Research, London:
Webster, C. (1994), Effects of Hispanic Ethnic Identification on Marital Roles in the

PurchasesDecision Process,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.21(2), pp. 319-331.
Westbrook, R.A. (1980), A Rating Scale for Measuring Product/Service Satisfaction,
Westbrook, R.A. (1987), Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and
PostpurchaseProcesses,Journal of Marketing Research,V61.24(3),pp.258-270.
Westbrook, R.A. and Oliver, R.L. (1991), The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion
PatternsandConsumerSatisfaction,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18(l), pp.84-91.
Wilkie, W.L. (1994), Consumer Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Williams, C. (1998), Is the SERVQUAL Model an Appropriate Management Tool for
Measuring Service Delivery Quality in the UK Leisure Industry?, Managing Leisure,
Vol.3(2), pp.98-110.
Williams, J.D. and Qualls, W.J. (1989), Middle-Class Black Consumers and Intensity of
Ethnic Identification, Psychology and Marketing, Vol.6(4), pp. 263-286.
Wood, L. (2000), Brands and Brand Equity: Definition and Management, Management
Decision, Vol.38(9), pp.662-669.
Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (1996), Know Your Customer: New Approaches to
Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction, Cambridge:Blackwell Publishers.
-309-
References
JNwn. 2008
Woodruff, FLG (1997), Customer Value: The Next Source of Competitive Advantage,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol.25(2), pp. 1390153.
Wright, L. T. and Crimp, M. (2000), The Marketing Research Process, Harlow: Financial
Times PrenticeHall.
Yang, Z. and Peterson,R.T. (2004), CustomerPerceivedValue, Satisfaction, and Loyalty:
The Role of Switching Costs,Psychology and Marketing, Vol.21(10), pp.799-822.
Yankelovich,D. (1981), New Rules, New York: RandomHouse.
Yi, Y. (1990), A Critical Review of Customer Satisfaction, in Review of Marketing,
Edited by Zeithaml, V.A., Chicago:American Marketing Association, pp.68-123.
Ybo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), Developing and Validating Multidimensional ConsumerBasedBrand Equity Scale,Journal of BusinessResearch,Vol.52(l), pp. 1-14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix
Elements and Brand Equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.28(2),
pp.195-211.
Ybon, Y. and Uysal. M. (2005), An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and
Satisfactionon Destination Loyalty: A StructuralModel, Tourism Management, Vol.26(l),
pp.45-56.
Young, S. and Feigin, B. (1975), Using the Benefit Chain for Improved Strategy
Formulation,Journal of Marketing, Vol.39(2), pp.72-74.
Yu, L. (1999), The International Hospitality Business,New York: Haworth Press.
Wang,C. (1990), Personal Values, Self-Concept and Consumer Satisfaction as Applied
to Choice of Restaurant: A Case Study, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University at
New York.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman,A. and Berry, L. L. (1985), Problems and Strategies in
ServicesMarketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol.49(2), pp.33-46.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), ConsumerPerceptionsof Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End
and Synthesisof Evidence,Journal of Marketing, Vol.52(3), pp.2-22.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M. J. (1996), Services Marketing, New York:McGraw-Hill.
-310-
References
JNam. 2008
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. L. and Parasuraman,A. (1996), The Behavioral Consequencesof

ServiceQuality, Journal of Marketing, Vol.60(2), pp.31-46.
Zins, A. H. (1998), Leisure Traveler Choice Models of Theme Hotels Using Psychographics,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol.36(4), pp.3-15.
-311-

University of Surrey: For The Service Sector

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

University of Surrey: For The Service Sector

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

UNIVERSITY

FOR THE SERVICE SECTOR

THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF BRAND EQUITY

THE REQUIR-EMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE

FOR THE SERVICE SECTOR

THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF BRAND EQUITY

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE

I herebydeclarethat this thesishasbeencomposedby myself and hasnot beenpresented

Emphasison building and managingbrandequity,as a primarydriver of a hospitalityfirm's

1.1Backgroundof the Research

An Overvicwof the Hospitality Industry in the UK

The Concept of Brand Equity

3.2 Whatis Brand?

3.2.2 Dcrinitions of Brand

3.3 Differcnt Pcrspcctivcsof Brand Equity

3.4.1.2 Theory of Sclf-Conccpt Congruence

3.4.5 Brand Equity Rcscarchin flic Hospitality Industry

The Antecedents and Consequencesof Brand Equity

4.2.1.3 Mcasurcmcntsof PcrsonalValucs

4.3.1.1.1.1BchaviouralApproach to Brand Loyalty

4.3.1.1.2 Importancc of Brand Loyalty

4.3.1.2 Brand Loyalty Mcasurcments

4.3.1.2.2Attitudinal Brand Loyalty Measurements

CHAPTER 5 The ResearchModel

6.5 DataAnalysis Methods

CHAPTER 7 Findings of (lie Research

7.3 Assessments of Validity and Reliability

7.7.2 Effects of Brand Equity on Brand Loyalty

7.7.3 Mediating Effects of Brand Equity

AppendixA: Final Questionnaire

Table2.2 Contribution of Hospitality Industry to Employment (000),

Tablc2.4TotalUK RcstaurantMcalsMarkctby Valucat CurrcntPriccs( 13m),

Tablc 2.8 Lcading Chain I lotcl Opcratorsby Numbcr of Rooms,2007

Table4.1TwoTypesof Valuesin the RokcachValueSurvey(RVS)

Table6.7 List of Restaurant

Table7.1 Resultsof FactorAnalysisfor the PersonalValuesScale

Table 7.4 Summaryof Lincar Regression:The Brand Equity Scale,

Table7.17ModeratingEffectsof Valuefor Moneyon the Relationship

Figure2.8 Forecastof UK I lotcl Marketby Valueat CurrentPrices( 13m),

Figure 4.2 VALS 2 Segments

Figure 7.5 Educational Level Distribution of Respondents

guidanccandinstructionduringthe pcriodof my study.

Last,but not least,I wish to dedicatethis studyto my parentswith deepestgratitudeandlove,

to my sister'sfamiliesfor their endlesslove andsupport.

1.1Background of the Research

brandequityhasbeenregardedasa growingareaof research(Yoo and Donthu,2001;Kim

1.2 Objectives of the Research

To idcntify the undcrlying dimcnsionsof pcrsonalvalucs and brand cquity.

To invcstigatcthe mccliatingcffcctsof brandcquity on the rclationshipbctwccn

To cxaminewlictlicr or not valuc for moncymodcratcsthe rclationshipbctwccn

1.3 Structure of the Thesis

Figure I. I: Structureof the Thesis

componentsof brand equity: self-concept,brand identification, lifestyle and perceived

from the previouschapterandmakessuggestions

Chapter 2. Literature Review I

2.2 The Hospitality Industry

Chgpler 2. Literature Review I

characteristicsof servicesthat differentiatethem from goods.

2.2.1.1 Characteristics of Services

Services cannot be separated

Source: Kotler et al. (2003, p.42)

Chgpter 2. Literature Review I

servicebefore buying, or even after purchasing(Jobber,2004). Intangibility also meansthat